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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on December 20, 2024, is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 8-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Powley
(US 5125261 A).
In regard to claims 8-11, Powley discloses:
[claim 8] an inspection gauge [calibration block 44] comprising:
a support [body of block, shown in Fig. 3], and
a plurality of portions to be examined provided on the support [location points 40, Fig. 3] such that the plurality of portions to be examined are arranged on a straight line along an extending direction of the support [Fig. 3 shows an alternative block that has three sets of three spheres in a line], wherein
the plurality of portions to be examined include a first portion to be examined, a second portion to be examined, and a third portion to be examined [Fig. 3 shows the three spheres in a line], and i) a first distance between the first portion to be examined and the second portion to be examined [L1, Fig. 3] and ii) a second distance between the second portion to be examined and the third portion to be examined [L5, Fig. 3] are different from each other [col. 6 lines 12-68 describe comparing the distances of each location to each other, implying that the distances can be different from one another];
[claim 9] that each portion to be examined is a sphere [Fig. 3 shows an example where the portions are spheres];
[claim 10] that each portion to be examined has a cone-shaped or truncated cone-shaped recess [col. 6 lines 28-30 describe an alternate embodiment where the portions are conical recesses]; and
[claim 11] that each portion to be examined includes three spherical elements that a sphere at a tip of a probe of a three-dimensional measuring apparatus contacts [described in col. 6 lines 12-68, probe shown in Fig. 1].
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.
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.
Claims 1-2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Inoue
(US 20220333920 A1; [Pre-Grant Publication No. of US 11656074 B2 cited in IDS filed December 20, 2024]).
In regard to claims 1-2, Inoue teaches:
[claim 1] a calibration data acquisition method [calibration, abstract], comprising:
a first holding {installation corresponding to a first posture, shown in Fig. 1A, described in para. [0006]}, including at least holding an inspection gauge [inspection gauge 100] provided with a plurality of portions to be examined {Fig. 4 shows and para. [0044] describes at least 6 measurement portions} in a first posture {first posture, para. [0006]} with a gauge moving apparatus {Fig. 3 shows a rail 31 with a slider 32 configured to move an object to be measured 33 - as the inspection gauge is an object to be measured, it would be obvious to substitute the inspection gauge 100 for the object to be measured 33 in order to better align the inspection gauge, as described at least in para. [0003]}, in a measurement space of a three-dimensional measuring apparatus [coordinate measuring machine, (CMM), abstract];
a first measuring {measurement according to a first posture, para. [0018]}, including at least acquiring first distance data by measuring a distance between the plurality of portions to be examined of the inspection gauge in the first posture {described in paras. [0017]-[0018]}, with the three-dimensional measuring apparatus {CMM, described in paras. [0017]-[0018]};
a second holding {installation corresponding to a second posture, shown in Fig. 1B, described in para. [0006]}, including at least holding the inspection gauge in a second posture that is different from the first posture with the gauge moving apparatus {paras. [0036]-[0037] describe configuring the object to be measured in a plurality of positions corresponding to at least the first and second postures}, after the first measuring {paras. [0036]-[0037]};
a second measuring {measurement according to a second posture, para. [0018]}, including at least acquiring second distance data by measuring a distance between the plurality of portions to be examined of the inspection gauge in the second posture {described in paras. [0017]-[0018]}, with the three-dimensional measuring apparatus {CMM, described in paras. [0017]-[0018]}; and generating calibration data including at least the first distance data and the second distance data [calculation value determined at least by measurements of the first posture, second posture, etc.; abstract]; and
[claim 2] that the inspection gauge is a first inspection gauge having a support and a plurality of spheres [balls, described in abstract, shown at least in Figs. 1A-1C] provided on the support at predetermined intervals as the plurality of portions to be examined {described at least in paras. [0006]-[0007]}, and the first measuring and the second measuring measure a center position of each sphere by bringing a tip of a probe of the three-dimensional measuring apparatus into contact with each sphere {described in paras. [0030]-[0032]}.
Claims 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Inoue as applied to claims 1-2 above, and further in view of Powley.
In regard to claim 3, Inoue teaches that the inspection gauge is a second inspection gauge having a support {sides of a regular tetrahedron, para. [0006], shown in Figs. 1A-1C} and a plurality of portions [spheres A-D, Figs. 1A-1C] to be examined that are provided on the support at predetermined intervals as the plurality of portions to be examined {described at least in paras. [0006]-[0007]}.
Inoue is not explicit that each portion has a cone-shaped or truncated cone- shaped recess, and
the first measuring and the second measuring measure a cone-shaped or truncated cone-shaped position to be measured by bringing a tip of a probe of the three- dimensional measuring apparatus into contact with an inner peripheral surface of the recess.
However, Powley also teaches an inspection gauge [calibration block] with measurement portions [kinematic locations 20], such that each of which has a cone-shaped or truncated cone- shaped recess [col. 5 lines 11-15 describe an embodiment where the kinematic location 20 comprises a conical recess 24', shown in Fig. 1], and the first measuring and the second measuring measure a cone-shaped or truncated cone-shaped position to be measured by bringing a tip of a probe of the three- dimensional measuring apparatus into contact with an inner peripheral surface of the recess [described in col. 5 lines 21-49].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have substituted Powley's calibration block with spheres and conical recesses for Inoue’s inspection gauge in order to better accommodate a probe measuring a location irrespective of a direction from which said probe extends, as taught by Powley [col. 5, lines 17-20, Fig. 1 shows a plurality of recesses that could be measured from a probe extending from a vertical direction].
In regard to claim 4, Inoue does not teach that the first holding and the second holding hold the second inspection gauge with the gauge moving apparatus so that an opening of the recess faces the probe.
However, Powley further teaches that the first holding and the second holding hold the second inspection gauge with the gauge moving apparatus so that an opening of the recess faces the probe [shown in Fig. 1].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have Powley's calibration block face Ionue's probe in order to better accommodate a probe tip facing a vertical direction, as taught by Powley [shown in Fig. 1, the recesses 24' facing in a vertical orientation better accommodate a probe extending from a vertical direction than the recesses facing a horizontal orientation].
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-7 are 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
In regard to claim 5, Inoue teaches that the gauge moving apparatus is configured to selectively use one of i) a first inspection gauge having a support and a plurality of spheres provided on the support at predetermined intervals {balls, described in abstract, shown at least in Figs. 1A-1C; spacing described at least in paras. [0006]-[0007]}, and Powley teaches ii) a second inspection gauge having a support and a plurality of portions to be examined provided on the support at predetermined intervals [seen in Fig. 1], each portion to be examined having a cone-shaped or truncated cone-shaped recess [col. 5 lines 11-15 describe an embodiment where the kinematic location 20 comprises a conical recess 24', shown in Fig. 1].
However, neither Inoue nor Powley teach that the first measuring or the second measuring uses the first inspection gauge with the gauge moving apparatus in response to a determination that the three-dimensional measuring apparatus does not have an operation mode of a probe for measuring a cone-shaped or truncated cone-shaped position to be measured.
Although Kiyotani (US 20230024920 A1; provided in IDS filed December 20, 2024) teaches a control unit of a coordinate measuring apparatus [read as a CMM] configured to determine an abnormality of a plurality of inspection gauges {abstract, paras. [0007], [0021], and [0027]}, and modifies the measurement approach based on said abnormality determination {para. [0007], whether the inspection gauge has spheres, vertexes of a triangular pyramid, etc.} - Kiyotani teaches that the CMM makes a decision on how to measure the inspection gauge based on the presence of measuring structures on the inspection gauge. Kyotani does not teach that the decision on how to measure the inspection gauge is based on the capabilities of the three-dimensional measuring apparatus [CMM].
As claims 6-7 are dependent upon claim 5, they would similarly be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Drescher (US 7036236 B1)
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL QUINN whose telephone number is (571)272-2690. The examiner can normally be reached T-R 07:00-19:00, F 07:00-11:00.
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, JOHN BREENE can be reached at (571)272-4107. 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.
/DANIEL M QUINN/Examiner, Art Unit 2855
/NATALIE HULS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2855
Prosecution Insights