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.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 18 September 2024 is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Interpretation
The term “preferably” is used numerous times throughout the claims, which results in limitations that are not positively. For example, claim 1 recites “at least one component, preferably at least…” where everything after “preferably” is not needed within the claim since it is only a mere preference. All limitations recited as a preference will not be considered as being needed within the claims. Further, the claims also recite many “and/or” choices, where it is understood that once one of the choices given is chosen, then the other limitations not chosen are no longer required in the claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claims do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because they recite “A computer program product” where the specification on page 9, lines 22-28 states that the computer program product can be merely software, and also on page 9, lines 14-23 of the specification it is stated that the computer program product can be a data carrier signal. Software and signals do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter. It is understood that software and programs can be implemented by a computer, however, are still non-statutory themselves without being embodied or tied to a non-transitory device. Thus, the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims covers forms of non-transitory tangible media and transitory propagating signals per se.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 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.
Claims 1, 3-4, 8-9 and 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pauleickhoff et al. (EP 0 657 260 A1) in view of Kasper et al. (US 2025/0054172).
Regarding claim 1, Pauleickhoff et al. disclose a computerized method for measuring a production pallet (Figure 1, element 3 is a production pallet.) for precast concrete component parts for the construction industry and/or at least one component (Figure 1, element 4 is “at least one component”.), preferably preferably
moving the production pallet relative to at least one measuring device, preferably According to the method according to the invention for quality assurance or for quality monitoring of shaped components, such as shaped stones, concrete stones, paving stones, bricks, slabs or the like, the method for producing is composed of the following operating units according to FIG. 1, initially in a mixer 1 a mixture of sand and / or gravel, cement and water and possibly with the addition of additives. This mixture is then fed to a molding device 2, in which 3 moldings 4 are then continuously produced on pallets by means of a mold (not shown). By means of a conveying device 5, the molded articles 4 produced in batches are then conveyed into a warehouse 6, where the individual molded articles 4 are stored on the pallet 3 for setting. In this case, a measuring arrangement 7 is connected directly downstream of the molding device 2, with which both height measurements are carried out on individual moldings 4 in a batch 8, and a color measurement and surface measurement are carried out on individual moldings 4 in a batch 8. The batches 8 which have not yet set, which are above or below a predetermined target value of the measuring arrangement 7, are removed from the flow of the conveying device 5 immediately after passing through the measuring arrangement 7, and the moldings 4 which have not yet set are fed back to the mixing device 1.”),
creating at least one depth measurement in a direction orthogonal to the production pallet by the at least one measuring device (Figures 1-2 and see page 19 of the provided document, second paragraph: “The height measurement, shown in FIG. 2, of the individual moldings 4 is carried out by means of at least two installed laser diodes 9 and 10 and a high-resolution line camera 11. With regard to the height measurement, the height of the pallet 3 on which the batch 8 is located is determined using one of the laser diodes 9 the moldings 4 is located. The height of the individual moldings 4 on the pallet 3 is measured with the second laser diode 9. The difference between the pallet 3 and the molding 4 resulting from the measurements then gives the exact height of the molding 4. When installing further lasers, not shown, it is possible to use them to check the contour of the molding 4, for example for qualitative monitoring of the Side faces of a molding 4.”), and
determining a production pallet height and/or a production height of at least one component arranged on the production pallet orthogonal to the production pallet by a computing unit via the at least one depth measurement in at least two positions of the production pallet spaced apart from each other (Figures 1-2 show that the positions of 9, 10 and 11 are spaced apart for making the determination. See page 19 of the provided document, second paragraph [reproduced above].).
Pauleickhoff et al. fail to teach wherein the depth measurement is a depth image.
Kasper et al. disclose of measuring a part using depth data, where a depth image is used (Figures 1 and3 and paragraphs [0020]-[0021], and Figure 8 and paragraph [0045].).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to “one of ordinary skill” in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the depth image teachings of Kasper et al. to make the depth measurements in the method taught by Pauleickhoff et al. The motivation to combine would have been in order to enable precise sectioning of a part in one or more desired measurement locations (See the last sentence of paragraph [0045] of Kasper et al.).
Regarding claim 3, Pauleickhoff et al. and Kasper et al. disclose the method according to claim 1, wherein a plurality of laser triangulation units and/or cameras are arranged on the at least one measuring device in a row orthogonal to the movement direction of the at least one measuring device (Pauleickhoff et al.: Figures 1-2, elements 9 and 10, in the combination with Kasper et al., Figure 1, elements 102a-d and paragraph [0021]: LiDAR.).
Regarding claim 4, Pauleickhoff et al. and Kasper et al. disclose the method according to claim 1.
While Pauleickhoff et al. and Kasper et al. fail to explicitly recite that the at least one measuring device is designed to determine production heights of the at least one precast concrete component part of between 10 mm and 600 mm, wherein the production height of the at least one precast concrete component part is determined between 10 mm and 600 mm, since Pauleickhoff et al. states that their measurement device is more shaped components, such as shaped stones, concrete stones, paving stones, bricks, slabs or the like, then it would have been obvious to “one of ordinary skill” in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the height of such objects would fall within that range since they are known to have heights within that range (For example, bricks are known to have heights of 57 mm, 65 mm, 75 mm, etc. all of which fall within the claimed range.).
Regarding claim 8, Pauleickhoff et al. and Kasper et al. disclose the method according to claim 1, wherein the at least one depth image is created as an 8-bit depth image and/or is derived from a point cloud (Kasper et al.: Figure 2, 216B and Figure 3 and paragraphs [0006] and [0030].), preferably
Regarding claim 9, Pauleickhoff et al. and Kasper et al. disclose the method according to claim 1, wherein the at least one depth image and at least one production parameter, preferably preferably
Regarding claim 14, this claim is rejected under the same rationale as claim 1, wherein Figure 2 of Pauleickhoff et al. also shows a computer program product.
Regarding claim 15, Pauleickhoff et al. and Kasper et al. disclose the computer program product according to claim 14, wherein, depending on at least one production parameter supplied to the computer program product:
the at least one depth image is reconstructed (Kasper et al.: Figure 2 shows a computing system 202, wherein the depth image along with parameters are used to reconstruct the depth image using an algorithm, see paragraph [0043] for example, where the common coordinate plane used in calibration is a production parameter, or paragraphs [0030] and [0033], where the threshold distance 218 is a production parameter.), and/or
a deviation of the production height from a target value is determined, and/or
a recommended correction for the post-processing of the at least one precast concrete component part is created.
Regarding claim 16, this claim is rejected under the same rationale as claim 1, wherein Figure 2 of Pauleickhoff et al. also shows a production system.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pauleickhoff et al. (EP 0 657 260 A1) in view of Kasper et al. (US 2025/0054172) and further in view of Wang (US 2016/0307326).
Regarding claim 2, Pauleickhoff et al. and Kasper et al. disclose the method according to claim 1.
Pauleickhoff et al. and Kasper et al. fail to teach wherein the at least one depth image is ascertained via laser of at least one laser of the at least one measuring device, wherein the at least one depth image is recorded by at least one camera, preferably
Pauleickhoff et al. and Kasper et al. fail to explicitly teach wherein the at least one depth image is ascertained via laser triangulation of at least one laser triangulation unit of the at least one measuring device.
Wang discloses wherein at least one depth image is ascertained via laser triangulation of at least one laser triangulation unit of at least one measuring device (Paragraphs [0034] and [0113].).
Hence the prior art includes each element claimed although not necessarily in a single prior art reference, with the only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art being the lack of the actual combination of the elements in a single prior art reference. In combination, the combination of Pauleickhoff et al. and Kasper et al. performs the same function as it does separately of ascertaining a depth image, and Wang performs the same function as it does separately of using triangulation.
Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, and that in combination, each element merely performed the same function as it does separately. The results of the combination would have been predictable and resulted in the at least one depth image being ascertained via laser triangulation.
Therefore, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pauleickhoff et al. (EP 0 657 260 A1) in view of Kasper et al. (US 2025/0054172) and further in view of Gallmetzer et al. (US 2023/0191655).
Regarding claim 5, Pauleickhoff et al. and Kasper et al. disclose the method according to claim 1.
Pauleickhoff et al. and Kasper et al. fail to teach wherein at least two precast concrete component parts are connected to form a double wall element, preferably
Gallmetzer et al. disclose wherein at least two precast concrete component parts are connected to form a double wall element (Figure 10 and paragraphs [0060] and [0141].).
Hence the prior art includes each element claimed although not necessarily in a single prior art reference, with the only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art being the lack of the actual combination of the elements in a single prior art reference. In combination, the combination of Pauleickhoff et al. and Kasper et al. performs the same function as it does separately of providing precast concrete component parts, and Gallmetzer et al. performs the same function as it does separately of providing a double-wall element formed by at least two precast concrete component parts.
Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, and that in combination, each element merely performed the same function as it does separately. The results of the combination would have been predictable and resulted in at least two precast concrete component parts being connected to form a double wall element
Therefore, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 6, Pauleickhoff et al., Kasper et al. and Gallmetzer et al. disclose the method according to claim 5, wherein a spacing of the two precast concrete component parts relative to each other is determined as the production height in at least two positions of the double wall element spaced apart from each other (Kasper et al.: Figure 8 and paragraph [0045] in the combination.).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pauleickhoff et al. (EP 0 657 260 A1) in view of Kasper et al. (US 2025/0054172) and further in view of Von Herzen et al. (US 2016/0266086).
Regarding claim 7, Pauleickhoff et al. and Kasper et al. disclose the method according to claim 1.
Pauleickhoff et al. and Kasper et al. fail to teach wherein the at least one depth image, preferably
Von Herzen et al. disclose wherein concrete is evaluated during a concrete curing process (Paragraph [0081]).
Hence the prior art includes each element claimed although not necessarily in a single prior art reference, with the only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art being the lack of the actual combination of the elements in a single prior art reference. In combination, the combination of Pauleickhoff et al. and Kasper et al. performs the same function as it does separately of taking a depth image of at least one precast concrete component part, and Von Herzen et al. performs the same function as it does separately of evaluating concrete during a concrete curing process.
Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, and that in combination, each element merely performed the same function as it does separately. The results of the combination would have been predictable and resulted in the depth image being created and evaluated during a concrete curing process of the at least one precast concrete component part.
Therefore, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pauleickhoff et al. (EP 0 657 260 A1) in view of Kasper et al. (US 2025/0054172) and further in view of Popp et al. (US 2004/0030433).
Regarding claim 10, Pauleickhoff et al. and Kasper et al. disclose the method according to claim 1, wherein, via an algorithm for the correction recognition of the at least one precast concrete component part, a deviation of the production height of the at least one precast concrete component part and/or of a possibly present spacing of two precast concrete component parts from a target value is determined (Pauleickhoff et al.: See page of the provide document, paragraph: “The surface shown on a screen 14 is designed accordingly, as is shown in FIG. 3. The article number, name, color and additional parameters appear in the upper left field. To the right of this is a map 15 in which colors are visible, similar to a traffic light, so that a batch 8 which has passed through the measuring arrangement 7 and is evaluated with the color green is not sorted out. Accordingly, the color yellow and red can cause the device to stop so that the corresponding batch 8 can be removed. At the bottom of the picture, 11 characteristic areas 16 are shown, in each of which the molded articles 4 of a batch 8 lying behind one another are made visible with the measured heights. The average value is indicated in a single map 17 above. If this average value is within a tolerance range that does not deviate from the target value by 5%, as here, for example, when the target value 10 is specified with a deviation of plus or minus 0.5, the system will not be shut down by the computer if, as in the map 17 Average of 10.2 is present.”.), preferably
Pauleickhoff et al. and Kasper et al. fail to teach wherein, using the algorithm, a recommended correction for the post-processing of the at least one precast concrete component part is created in dependence on the deviation determined.
Popp et al. disclose wherein, using the algorithm, a recommended correction for post-processing of an item is created in dependence on a deviation determined (Paragraph [0232]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to “one of ordinary skill” in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the recommendation teachings of Popp et al. in the evaluation of the precast concrete component part in the method taught by the combination of Pauleickhoff et al. and Kasper et al. The motivation to combine would have bene in order to manufacture concrete parts that allow for more consistent sizes without waste.
Regarding claim 11, Pauleickhoff et al., Kasper et al. and Popp et al. disclose the method according to claim 10, wherein a deviation of dimensions of the at least one precast concrete component part from target values is determined in at least three degrees of freedom (Figure 3 of Kasper et al. shows the point cloud in three degrees of freedom, and thus the deviations in the combination will be measured in these three degrees of freedom.), preferably
Regarding claim 12, Pauleickhoff et al., Kasper et al. and Popp et al. disclose the method according to claim 10, wherein the at least one precast concrete component part is post-processed depending on the recommended correction (Popp et al.: Paragraph [0232]: “The recommended corrective action(s) can be displayed to an operator on operator interface 1118 and/or automatically performed.” where, in the combination, the corrective action, i.e. post-processing, will be performed on the at least one precast concrete component part).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pauleickhoff et al. (EP 0 657 260 A1) in view of Kasper et al. (US 2025/0054172) and further in view of Von Herzen et al. (US 2016/0266086) and Popp et al. (US 2004/0030433).
Regarding claim 13, please refer to the rejections of claims 7 and 13, where since the evaluation for the corrective action will be performed during curing, then the corrective action, i..e post-processing” will also be performed during curing, and thus will be effected before the concrete cures.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEPHEN G SHERMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-2941. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:00am - 4pm ET.
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, AMR AWAD can be reached at (571)272-7764. 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.
/STEPHEN G SHERMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2621
29 June 2026
Prosecution Insights