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
INFORMATION DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 01/15/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
FOREIGN PRIORITY
A claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C § 119 (a) - (d), which was contained in the Declaration and Power of Attorney filed on 04/10/2025 has been acknowledged. Acknowledgement of claimed foreign priority and receipt of priority documents is reflected in form PTO-326 Office Action Summary.
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 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to as ineligible under subject eligibility test. In the Subject Matter Eligibility Test for Products and Processes (Federal Register, Vol. 79, No. 241, dated Tuesday, December 16, 2014, page 74621), The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional device elements, which are recited at a high level of generality, provide conventional computer functions that do not add meaningful limits to practicing the abstract idea.
Claims 1 & 8-9
Step 1
This step inquires “is the claim to a process, article of machine, manufacture or composition of matter?” Yes,
Claim 1 – “Method” is a process.
Claims 8-9 - “Apparatuses” or “Non-Transitory CRM” are machines.
Step 2A - Prong 1
This step inquires “does the claim recite an abstract idea, law or natural phenomenon”. This claim appears to directed to an abstract idea.
Abstract ideas fall under three categories:
(1) Mathematical Concepts;
(2) Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity;
(3) Mental Processes
Mental Processes
The limitation of “accessing a database in which a plurality of data records are stored, each data record including data on: at least two geometric elements that a workpiece might contain, at least one geometric relationship of the at least two geometric elements in relation to one another, wherein the geometric relationship is a dimensional relationship allowing determination as to whether the geometric relationship exists in a workpiece to be measured, by way of ascertaining and evaluating coordinates of the at least two geometric elements, and a test feature assigned to the at least two geometric elements, wherein the assigned test feature is testable with respect to the at least two geometric elements for a workpiece to be tested; ascertaining workpiece coordinates for the designated workpiece by at least one of evaluating measurement data of the designated workpiece or planning data of the designated workpiece; creating a determination result by determining, based on the workpiece coordinates, whether the designated workpiece contains the at least two geometric elements and the at least one geometric relationship of at least one of the plurality of data records; and generating a test plan for measuring at least one of the designated workpiece or a second workpiece having a same type as the designated workpiece, wherein the generating includes, depending on the determination result in relation to the respective data record, at least one of incorporating the assigned test feature in the test plan or confirming presence of the assigned test feature in the test plan.”, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mental processes (e.g. observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion/subjective determination. That is, other than reciting “two geometric elements” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “two geometric elements” language, “accessing, ascertaining, creating, generating” in the context of this claim encompasses covers mental processes (e.g. observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion/subjective determination.
STEP 2A – PRONG 1 - CONCLUSION
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas.
Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A - Prong 2
This step inquires “does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application”. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites two additional element – using a “two geometric elements” language to perform “accessing, ascertaining, creating, generating” steps. The “two geometric elements” language are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor) “accessing a database in which a plurality of data records are stored, each data record including data on: at least two geometric elements that a workpiece might contain, at least one geometric relationship of the at least two geometric elements in relation to one another, wherein the geometric relationship is a dimensional relationship allowing determination as to whether the geometric relationship exists in a workpiece to be measured, by way of ascertaining and evaluating coordinates of the at least two geometric elements, and a test feature assigned to the at least two geometric elements, wherein the assigned test feature is testable with respect to the at least two geometric elements for a workpiece to be tested; ascertaining workpiece coordinates for the designated workpiece by at least one of evaluating measurement data of the designated workpiece or planning data of the designated workpiece; creating a determination result by determining, based on the workpiece coordinates, whether the designated workpiece contains the at least two geometric elements and the at least one geometric relationship of at least one of the plurality of data records; and generating a test plan for measuring at least one of the designated workpiece or a second workpiece having a same type as the designated workpiece, wherein the generating includes, depending on the determination result in relation to the respective data record, at least one of incorporating the assigned test feature in the test plan or confirming presence of the assigned test feature in the test plan.” such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
STEP 2A – PRONG 2 - CONCLUSION
Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B
The critical inquiry here is does the claim recite additional elements that amount to “significantly more” than the judicial exception? The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a “two geometric elements” to perform “accessing, ascertaining, creating, generating” steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent Claims
As to claim 2, this claim is directed to mental process (“yes”). Thus, this claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or constitute significantly more than the abstract.
As to claim 3, this claim is directed to mental process (“yes”). Thus, this claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or constitute significantly more than the abstract.
As to claim 4, this claim is directed to mental process (“yes”). Thus, this claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or constitute significantly more than the abstract.
As to claim 5, this claim is directed to insignificant extra-solution activity (“measuring the designated workpiece by at least one coordinate measuring machine, wherein the measurement data are created to ascertain the workpiece coordinates.”). Thus, this claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or constitute significantly more than the abstract.
As to claim 10, this claim is directed to mental process (“yes”). Thus, this claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or constitute significantly more than the abstract.
As to claim 11, this claim is directed to mental process (“yes”). Thus, this claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or constitute significantly more than the abstract.
As to claims 6-7, these claims are rejected due to their dependence on claim 1 and are rejected for the same reasons.
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 of this title, 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.
Claims 1-2 & 5-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MAYR ADAM et al. (U.S. Publication 2021/0173973) in view of Dotschkal et al. (U.S. Publication 2018/0010910)
As to claims 1 & 8-9, MAYR ADAM discloses an access device configured to access a database in which a plurality of data records are stored (Fig. 1, 3 & [0056, 0061]), each containing data on: at least two geometric elements that a workpiece might contain (Fig. 2, 4 & [0058, 0062] ), at least one geometric relationship of the at least two geometric elements in relation to one another (Fig. 4 & [0062]), wherein the geometric relationship is a dimensional relationship (Fig. 4 & [0022, 0062]) allowing determination as to whether the geometric relationship exists in a workpiece to be measured, by way of ascertaining and evaluating coordinates of the at least two geometric elements (Fig. 1, 4 & [0053, 0064]), and a test feature assigned to the at least two geometric elements (Fig. 4 & [0021-0022, 0062]), wherein the assigned test feature is testable with respect to the at least two geometric elements for a workpiece to be tested (Fig. 4 & [0064]); an evaluation device configured to ascertain workpiece coordinates, for a designated workpiece, by evaluating at least one of measurement data of the designated workpiece or planning data of the designated workpiece (Fig. 1 & [0053-0054]); a determination device configured to use the workpiece coordinates to determine whether the designated workpiece contains the at least two geometric elements (Fig. 3 & [0061]) and the at least one geometric relationship of at least one of the plurality of data records, and to create a corresponding determination result; and a test plan device configured to, depending on the determination result in relation to the respective data record, at least one of (i) incorporate the assigned test feature in a test plan (Fig. 4-5 & [0063-0064]) for measuring the designated workpiece or a second workpiece of a same type as the designated workpiece or (ii) confirm the assigned test feature as part of the test plan.
MAYR ADAM is silent to a database in which a plurality of data records are stored, each containing data on: at least one geometric elements that a workplace might contain, at least one geometric relationship of the at least two geometric elements in relation to one another, and a test feature assigned to the at least two geometric elements; determine whether the designated workpiece contains the at least two geometric elements and the at least one geometric relationship of at least one of the plurality of data records, and to create a corresponding determination result; depending on the determination result in relation to the respective data record; incorporate the assigned test feature in a test plan or confirm the assigned test feature as part of the test plan.
However, Dotschkal discloses a database in which a plurality of data records are stored, each containing data on (Fig. 2 & [0070, 0072-0073, 0113]): at least one geometric elements that a workplace might contain, at least one geometric relationship of the at least two geometric elements in relation to one another, and a test feature assigned to the at least two geometric elements (Fig. 7 & [0128]); determine whether the designated workpiece contains the at least two geometric elements and the at least one geometric relationship of at least one of the plurality of data records (Fig. 2, 6-7 & [0115, 0129]), and to create a corresponding determination result; depending on the determination result in relation to the respective data record; incorporate the assigned test feature in a test plan or confirm the assigned test feature as part of the test plan (Fig. 2, [0083, 0115], steps S4-S6).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to modify MAYR ADAM’s disclosure to include the above limitations in order to reduce the time taken to generate a test plan and increase operator convenience when generating the test plan.
As to claim 2, MAYR ADAM in view of Dotschkal discloses everything as disclosed in claim 1. In addition, MAYR ADAM discloses at least one of the data records in the database includes, besides the data on the assigned test feature, additional information concerning implementation of the measurement of the workpiece or a reference regarding the additional information, the additional information is incorporated in the test plan and/or a measurement plan, corresponding to the test plan, for measuring the designated workpiece or for measuring a workpiece of the same type and/or is confirmed as part of the test plan. ([0018-0019])
MAYR ADAM in view of Dotschkal is silent to depending on the determination result.
However, Dotschkal discloses depending on the determination result.([0005-0006, 0024, 0032-0033])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to modify MAYR ADAM in view of Dotschkal’s disclosure to include the above limitations in order to reduce the time taken to generate a test plan and increase operator convenience when generating the test plan.
As to claim 5, MAYR ADAM in view of Dotschkal discloses everything as disclosed in claim 1. In addition, Dotschkal discloses measuring the designated workpiece by at least one coordinate measuring machine, wherein the measurement data are created to ascertain the workpiece coordinates. (Fig. 1 & [0050, 0053])
As to claim 6, MAYR ADAM in view of Dotschkal discloses everything as disclosed in claim 1. In addition, MAYR ADAM discloses measuring the designated workpiece or the second workpiece by the at least one coordinate measuring machine according to the test plan.
MAYR ADAM in view of Dotschkal is silent to according to the test plan.
However, Dotschkal discloses according to the test plan. ([0087-0088])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to modify MAYR ADAM in view of Dotschkal’s disclosure to include the above limitations in order to reduce the time taken to generate a test plan and hence also to test the measurement object.
As to claim 7, MAYR ADAM in view of Dotschkal discloses everything as disclosed in claim 1. In addition, MAYR ADAM discloses ascertaining a value of the test feature by the at least one coordinate measuring machine. ([0057, 0069] & Fig. 6)
As to claim 10, MAYR ADAM in view of Dotschkal discloses everything as disclosed in claim 1. In addition, MAYR ADAM discloses a system comprising: the apparatus of claim 9; and at least one coordinate measuring machine configured to carry out measurement of at least one of the designated workpiece or the second workpiece and create corresponding measurement data. ([0050, 0053-0054] & Fig. 1)
As to claim 11, MAYR ADAM in view of Dotschkal discloses everything as disclosed in claim 1. In addition, MAYR ADAM discloses A system comprising: the apparatus of claim 9; and the database. ([0056] & Fig. 1)
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MAYR ADAM et al. (U.S. Publication 2021/0173973) in view of Dotschkal et al. (U.S. Publication 2018/0010910) as applied in claim 1 above further in view of Bober et al. (U.S. Publication 2011/0038241)
As to claim 3, MAYR ADAM in view of Dotschkal discloses everything as disclosed in claim 1 but is silent to when determining whether the designated workpiece contains the at least two geometric elements and the at least one geometric relationship of at least one of the plurality of data records: there is an initial determination with respect to one of the data records as to whether the designated workpiece contains all the geometric elements for which the geometric relationship of the geometric elements is defined in relation to one another in the data record, and if so, there is a subsequent determination as to whether the geometric relationship exists for the geometric elements of the designated workpiece.
However, Bober discloses when determining whether the designated workpiece contains the at least two geometric elements and the at least one geometric relationship of at least one of the plurality of data records: there is an initial determination with respect to one of the data records as to whether the designated workpiece contains all the geometric elements for which the geometric relationship of the geometric elements is defined in relation to one another in the data record, and if so, there is a subsequent determination as to whether the geometric relationship exists for the geometric elements of the designated workpiece. ([0066-0072, 0075, 0077])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to modify MAYR ADAM in view of Dotschkal’s disclosure to include the above limitations in order to minimize computational complexity while increasing matching accuracy and reducing false matches by reserving the more computationally expensive geometric relationship determination for candidates that satisfy the initial feature correspondence determination.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MAYR ADAM et al. (U.S. Publication 2021/0173973) in view of Dotschkal et al. (U.S. Publication 2018/0010910) as applied in claim 1 above further in view of Lei et al. (U.S. Publication 2020/0125830)
As to claim 4, MAYR ADAM in view of Dotschkal discloses everything as disclosed in claim 1 but is silent to wherein: there is an ascertainment of a plurality of the data records stored in the database, which each: define data record geometric elements corresponding to the same plurality of geometric elements of the designated workpiece, and define the geometric relationship for these data record geometric elements, a measure for a correspondence of the geometric elements and the geometric relationship is ascertained for each of the plurality of ascertained data records, and the measure of correspondence is used to ascertain at least one of the plurality of ascertained data records as non-corresponding or having a lower correspondence than at least one other data record of the plurality of determined data records.
However, Lei discloses wherein: there is an ascertainment of a plurality of the data records (Fig. 2 & [0014]) stored in the database, which each: define data record geometric elements corresponding to the same plurality of geometric elements of the designated workpiece (Fig. 4 & [0019]), and define the geometric relationship for these data record geometric elements (Fig. 4 & [0021]), a measure for a correspondence of the geometric elements and the geometric relationship is ascertained for each of the plurality of ascertained data records (Fig. 4 & [0019]), and the measure of correspondence is used to ascertain at least one of the plurality of ascertained data records as non-corresponding (Fig. 1, 3 & [0011, 0015, 0021]) or having a lower correspondence than at least one other data record (Fig. 5 & [0027]) of the plurality of determined data records.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to modify MAYR ADAM in view of Dotschkal’s disclosure to include the above limitations in order to determine the best corresponding stored candidate and distinguish candidates and distinguish candidates having lower or insufficient correspondence.
CONCLUSION
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Stephen P Coleman whose telephone number is (571)270-5931. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8AM-5PM.
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, Andrew Moyer can be reached at (571) 272-9523. 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 P. Coleman
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2675
/STEPHEN P COLEMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2675
Prosecution Insights