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 .
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.
Response to Amendments/Arguments
No claims have been amended, added, or cancelled. Applicant’s arguments filed 04/03/2026 regarding the 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) rejections from the previous Office action are persuasive/convincing, and so those rejections have been withdrawn and hereby replaced with the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections below. Additionally, upon further consideration, Somerville does not explicitly disclose using multiple reference surfaces of the probe, and an additional source, and therefore additional grounds of rejection, have been added. As such, this instant Office action is NOT final (it’s a second action non-final).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 11, 30, and 44-45; 14, 20, 22, and 25; and 9, 11, and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 11, 30, and 44-45 use the limitation “for example”, and are therefore indefinite and rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. See MPEP 2173.05(d) Exemplary Claim Language.
Claims 14, 20, 22, and 25 use the limitation “optional”, and are therefore indefinite and rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. See MPEP 2173.05(d) Exemplary Claim Language.
Claims 9, 11, and 25 use the limitation “substantially”, and are therefore indefinite and rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. See MPEP 2173.05(b) Relative Terminology.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
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 therefore, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim 50 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Independent Claim 50, The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because it is directed toward the recited “A computer-readable medium having stored therein computer program instructions…”
Based upon consideration of all of the relevant factors with respect to the claim as a whole, the claims are held to claim a signal per se, and is therefore rejected as ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101. The rationale for this finding is explained below:
The broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim covers forms of non-transitory tangible media and transitory propagating signals per se in view of the ordinary and customary meaning of computer readable media (CRM), such as “A computer-readable medium having stored therein computer program instructions...” indicated above. The specification is either silent or open-ended thus not limiting CRM to just non-transitory media. A claim drawn to such a computer readable medium that covers both transitory and non- transitory embodiments may be amended to narrow the claim to cover only statutory embodiments to avoid a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 by adding the limitation “non- transitory” to the claim. See guidelines for Subject Matter Eligibility of Computer readable Media, 1351 OG 212, Feb. 23, 2010.
Accordingly, appropriate correction is earnestly requested.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-14, 18, 20, 22, 25, 30, 44-45, 47-48 and 50-51 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Somerville (US20130090878, referred to as Somerville) in view of McGinley et al. (US20070156066, referred to as McGinley).
Regarding claim 1: Somerville discloses: A method of calibrating a coordinate positioning machine having a first member that is moveable relative to a second member, wherein the geometry of the machine is characterized by a set of model parameters, and ([0078] It can be seen from FIGS. 4a-4c that changing the stylus, probe head translation and probe head rotation have different effects on the shift in apparent stylus ball position (i.e. the probe offset vector) that occurs as a function of probe head angle. Measuring the probe offset vector (defined in the probe or stylus geometry system) at a plurality of different head orientations can thus be used to assess what effect the disturbance has had on the CMM.) wherein the method comprises: (a) controlling the machine to make point contact between [multiple] reference surface[s] of a tool or artefact mounted on the first member and multiple reference surfaces of an artefact mounted on the second member; and ([0010] Firstly, a set of calibration data is taken that has been established for the coordinate positioning apparatus in the usual manner. In particular, the calibration data set comprises first datum data for a first nominal orientation of the measurement probe and further datum data for further orientations of the measurement probe. For a measurement probe comprising a deflectable stylus having a spherical stylus tip, the datum data for each different orientation may comprise information that describes the position of the centre of the (undeflected) stylus tip relative to a common or fixed point in the machine coordinate system.) (b) updating at least one of the model parameters knowing that the actual separations are zero. ([0023] the error in the (unknown) position of the calibration artefact is preferably separated from the change in the first datum data. This may be achieved by the step of acquiring one or more position measurements using the coordinate positioning apparatus with the measurement probe placed in at least three different nominal orientations. An apparent position of the calibration artefact can then be measured for each of the at least three different nominal orientations of the measurement probe and the first correction calculated from [0050] Probe datuming is the process by which the positional relationship between a reference measurement point of the measurement probe (e.g. the position (t) of the undeflected stylus tip) is established relative to a known point in the machine coordinate system (e.g. the point (h) on the head that has a known position relative to the origin (o) of the machine coordinate geometry). For example, probe qualification may involve establishing datum data in the form of the stylus deflection vector described above. The datum data may also include a value relating to the radius (r) of the spherical tip of the stylus)
Somerville does not explicitly disclose: multiple reference surfaces of a tool
Somerville does not disclose the following limitations, however McGinley, from an analogous field of endeavor, teaches: multiple reference surfaces of a tool ([0033] The computer 52 records the three-dimensional position of the end 32 of each of the pins 22. The computer 52 can then process the position information to produce a computer model of the shape of the anatomic surface which the ends 32 are contacting.)
Somerville and McGinley are analogous art to the claimed invention since they are from the similar field of robotic end effector probing of objects to determine object characteristics. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, with a reasonable expectation for success, to modify the control method of Somerville to enable the multiple probe surfaces taught in McGinley.
The motivation for modification would have been to provide the probing method disclosed in Somerville with the method applied to the multiple probe surfaces taught in McGinley.
Regarding claim 2: The combination of Somerville and McGinley teaches: A method as claimed in claim 1,
Somerville further discloses: wherein step (a) comprises (i) making a plurality of point contacts between an end surface of the first artefact/tool and a top surface of the second artefact, with the same orientation of the first artefact/tool for each contact. (See citations above in the rejection of Claim 1 pertaining to at least Paragraph 10, which is not being repeated for the sake of brevity)
Regarding claim 3: The combination of Somerville and McGinley teaches: A method as claimed in claim 1,
Somerville further discloses: wherein step (a) comprises (ii) making a plurality of point contacts between an end surface of the first artefact/tool and a top surface of the second artefact, with a different orientation of the first artefact/tool for each contact. (See citations above in the rejection of Claim 1 pertaining to at least Paragraph 10, which is not being repeated for the sake of brevity)
Regarding claim 4: The combination of Somerville and McGinley teaches: A method as claimed in claim 1,
Somerville further discloses: wherein step (a) comprises (iii) making a plurality of point contacts between an end surface of the first artefact/tool and a side surface of the second artefact at different positions around the side surface of the second artefact. (See citations above in the rejection of Claim 1 pertaining to at least Paragraph 10, which is not being repeated for the sake of brevity)
Regarding claim 5: The combination of Somerville and McGinley teaches: A method as claimed in claim 1,
Somerville further discloses: wherein step (a) comprises (iv) making a plurality of point contacts between a side surface of the first artefact/tool and a side surface of the second artefact. (See citations above in the rejection of Claim 1 pertaining to at least Paragraph 10, which is not being repeated for the sake of brevity)
Regarding claim 6: The combination of Somerville and McGinley teaches: A method as claimed in claim 1,
Somerville further discloses: comprising performing step (a)(iv) for at least two different positions along the length of the first artefact/tool. (See citations above in the rejection of Claim 1 pertaining to at least Paragraph 10, which is not being repeated for the sake of brevity)
Regarding claim 7: The combination of Somerville and McGinley teaches: A method as claimed in claim 1,
Somerville further discloses: wherein the first artefact/tool has a defined and/or identifiable axis. ([0045] The Scanning probe 12, which may comprise a Renishaw SP25 probe, includes internal transducers that measure any deflection of the stylus 14 away from a so-called neutral or rest position. Any deflection of the stylus 14 is thus measured by the Scanning probe 12 in its local (probe) coordinate (a,b,c) system. To improve the ability to Scan complex objects, the indexing probe head 10 allows the scanning probe 12 to be rotated, relative to the quill, about the orthogonal axes A and B and locked in any one of multiple indexed positions. In the case of a Renishaw PH10 probe head, the probe may be indexed into any one of 720 different indexed positions. A controller 16 controls operation of the CMM.)
Regarding claim 8: The combination of Somerville and McGinley teaches: A method as claimed in claim 1,
Somerville further discloses: wherein an end surface of the first artefact/tool is spherical or at least revolute, at least where contact is made with the second artefact. (See citations above in the rejection of Claim 7 pertaining to at least Paragraph 0045, which is not being repeated for the sake of brevity.)
Regarding claim 9: The combination of Somerville and McGinley teaches: A method as claimed in claim 1,
Somerville further discloses: wherein the centre of the at least part spherical or revolute surface lies substantially on the defined and/or identifiable axis of the first artefact/tool. ([0016] the reference measurement point of Such a measurement probe comprises the centre of the spherical stylus tip when the stylus is in the neutral position. The step of calculating a first correction may thus com prise measuring the offset in the apparent position of the centre of the spherical stylus tip relative to the position of the centre of the spherical stylus tip previously established during US 2013/0090878 A1 calibration. Advantageously, the datum data for each measurement probe orientation includes a stylus tip radius value.)
Regarding claim 10: The combination of Somerville and McGinley teaches: A method as claimed in claim 1,
Somerville further discloses: wherein a side surface of the first artefact/tool is cylindrical, at least where contact is made with the second artefact. (See citations above in the rejection of Claim 7 pertaining to at least Paragraph 0045, which is not being repeated for the sake of brevity.)
Regarding claim 11: The combination of Somerville and McGinley teaches: A method as claimed in claim 10,
Somerville further discloses: wherein the axis of the at least part cylindrical surface is substantially parallel to the defined and/or identifiable axis of the first artefact/tool, for example substantially in line with the axis. (See citations above in the rejection of Claim 7 pertaining to at least Paragraph 0045, which is not being repeated for the sake of brevity.)
Regarding claim 12: The combination of Somerville and McGinley teaches: A method as claimed in claim 1,
Somerville further discloses: wherein a top surface of the second artefact is planar, at least where contact is made with the first artefact/tool. (See citations above in the rejection of Claim 7 pertaining to at least Paragraph 0045, which is not being repeated for the sake of brevity.)
Regarding claim 13: The combination of Somerville and McGinley teaches: A method as claimed in claim 1,
Somerville further discloses: wherein a side surface of the second artefact is spherical, at least where contact is made with the first artefact/tool. (See citations above in the rejection of Claim 7 pertaining to at least Paragraph 0045, which is not being repeated for the sake of brevity.)
Regarding claim 14: The combination of Somerville and McGinley teaches: A method as claimed in claim 1,
Somerville further discloses: further comprising, in the case where the first artefact/tool is an artefact rather than a tool, mounting a tool on the first member in place of the first artefact, and making at least one further contact between an end surface of the tool and a top surface of the second artefact to determine a length associated with the tool, and optionally updating a tool centre point associated with the tool based on the length. ([0013] The platform carrying the measurement probe is preferably moveable within the working space of the coordinate positioning apparatus. For example, the platform may comprise a quill that can be moved along three mutually orthogonal (e.g. X,Y,Z) machine axes. The position of the platform may be measured in a machine coordinate system by, for example, position encoders provided on each of the machine axes. The measurement probe preferably has a reference measurement point Such as a point located on, or at a certain fixed position relative to, the body of the measurement probe. Position measurements may then be acquired by the measurement probe in a local coordinate system and linked to the reference measurement point that has an invariant position in the local coordinate system. The reference measurement point may define the origin of the local coordinate system of the measurement probe. [0014]. The first datum data advantageously comprises a vector or other positional data describing, for the first nominal orientation of the measurement probe, the position of the reference measurement point of the measurement probe relative to a point in the machine coordinate system. The point in the machine coordinate system may, for example, be a point that moves with the platform and is thus known or has a certain relationship to a known or defined point (e.g. an origin) in the machine coordinate System. [0015] Advantageously, the first correction comprises a first offset or first offset vector describing a shift in the reference measurement point of the measurement probe relative to the point in the machine coordinate system for the first nominal orientation of the measurement probe. In other word, the first correction may describe the change or shift in the vector that describes the position of the reference measurement point of the measurement probe relative to a point in the machine coordinate system. It has been found that, to a good approximation, the first offset calculated for the first orientation of the measurement probe is applicable (after appropriate rotation) to all other orientations of the measurement probe that have been previously calibrated. The datum data for one or more different orientations can then be updated using the first offset. In this manner, the previously acquired set of calibration data is adjusted to compensate for the first offset or shift in the reference measurement point of the probe due to the disturbance.)
Regarding claim 18: The combination of Somerville and McGinley teaches: A method as claimed in claim 1,
Somerville further discloses: wherein the reference surfaces of the second artefact are metrological surfaces and/or wherein, in the case where the first artefact/tool is an artefact rather than a tool, the reference surfaces of the first artefact are metrological surfaces. ([0053] Performing a one-off calibration when commissioning a CMM or a new measurement probe is time consuming, but Such an event can be pre-planned to fit in with a production schedule. Furthermore, once calibrated the CMM can be used to acquire measurements for prolonged periods. There are, however, instances where CMM recalibration is suddenly required due to an unexpected disturbance to the machine, Such as a crash that breaks a stylus and/or misaligns the probe head. In Such cases, the operator is faced with having to take the machine offline in order to perform the recalibration process that is necessary to ensure metrology performance is maintained. This can be seriously disruptive to a production process.)
Regarding claim 20: The combination of Somerville and McGinley teaches: A method as claimed in claim 1,
Somerville further discloses: comprising sensing contact between the first artefact/tool and the second artefact using a sensor, wherein the sensor is optionally mounted on the second member and is optionally a touch probe or a tool setter. ([0003] One known type of contact measurement probe used with coordinate positioning apparatus comprises a probe housing and a deflectable stylus. Typically, the probe housing is mounted to the moveable platform or quill of the coordinate positioning apparatus and moved so as to bring the tip of the stylus into contact with the object to be measured. On contacting the object, the Stylus deflects away from its so-called undeflected, rest or neutral position with respect to the probe housing and this stylus deflection is sensed by appropriate sensors. Measurement probes of this type may be broadly categorised as either touch trigger probes or scanning probes. Touch trigger probes (also known as digital or Switching probes) produce a trigger signal whenever the stylus deflection exceeds a certain threshold.)
Regarding claim 22: The combination of Somerville and McGinley teaches: A method as claimed in claim 20,
Somerville further discloses: wherein the sensor is a contact sensor having a deflectable stylus and a contacting member for contacting an object being sensed, and wherein the second artefact is optionally used as the contacting member of the contact sensor. (See citations above in the rejection of Claim 20 pertaining to at least Paragraph 0003, which is not being repeated for the sake of brevity.)
Regarding claim 25: The combination of Somerville and McGinley teaches: A method as claimed in claim 1,
Somerville further discloses: wherein the second artefact comprises a planar surface and an at least part spherical surface, wherein the at least part spherical surface optionally defines a plurality of possible contact points in an at least part circular arrangement in a plane that is substantially parallel to the planar surface of the second artifact. (See citations above in the rejection of Claim 7 pertaining to at least Paragraph 0045, which is not being repeated for the sake of brevity.)
Regarding claim 30: The combination of Somerville and McGinley teaches: A method as claimed in claim 1,
Somerville further discloses: wherein at least one of the surfaces of the first artefact/tool and/or the second artefact is a revolute surface, for example having at least one revolute axis. (See citations above in the rejection of Claim 7 pertaining to at least Paragraph 0045, which is not being repeated for the sake of brevity.)
Regarding claim 44: The combination of Somerville and McGinley teaches: A method as claimed in claim 1,
Somerville further discloses: wherein the model parameters comprise a plurality of tool frame parameters, and wherein step (b) comprises updating at least three of the tool frame parameters, for example three tool frame parameters defining the position of a tool centre point. (See citations above in the rejection of Claim 1 pertaining to at least Paragraph 0023 and 0050, which are not being repeated for the sake of brevity.)
Regarding claim 45: The combination of Somerville and McGinley teaches: A method as claimed in claim 1,
Somerville further discloses: wherein the model parameters comprise a plurality of part frame parameters, and wherein step (b) comprises updating at least three of the part frame parameters, for example three part frame parameters defining the position of a point of interest of the part frame. (See citations above in the rejection of Claim 1 pertaining to at least Paragraph 0023 and 0050, which are not being repeated for the sake of brevity.)
Regarding claim 47: The combination of Somerville and McGinley teaches: comprising performing a method as claimed in claim 1,
Somerville further discloses: A method of calibrating the axis of a spindle mounted to a coordinate positioning machine such as a robot arm, and wherein step (b) comprises determining at least the orientation of the axis. (See citations above in the rejection of Claim 7 pertaining to at least Paragraph 0045, which are not being repeated for the sake of brevity.)
Regarding claim 48: The combination of Somerville and McGinley teaches: comprising performing a method as claimed in claim 1,
Somerville further discloses: A method of checking and/or updating the tool or part frame of a tool or part mounted to a coordinate positioning machine such as a robot arm, and wherein step (b) comprises checking and/or updating one or more parameters of the tool or part frame. (See citations above in the rejection of Claim 1 pertaining to at least Paragraph 0023 and 0050, which are not being repeated for the sake of brevity.)
Regarding claim 50: The combination of Somerville and McGinley teaches: a method as claimed in claim 1.
Somerville further discloses: A computer-readable medium having stored therein computer program instructions for controlling a computer or a machine controller to perform one or more steps of … ([0045] A controller 16 controls operation of the CMM.)
Regarding claim 51: The combination of Somerville and McGinley teaches: a method as claimed in claim 1.
Somerville further discloses: A computer or machine controller configured to perform one or more steps of … ([0045] A controller 16 controls operation of the CMM.)
Conclusion
The prior art made of record, and not relied upon, considered pertinent to applicant' s disclosure or directed to the state of art is listed on the enclosed PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ATTICUS A CAMERON whose telephone number is 703-756-4535. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30 am - 4:30 pm.
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, Thomas Worden can be reached on 571-272-4876. 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.
/ATTICUS A CAMERON/
Examiner, Art Unit 3658A
/THOMAS E WORDEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3658
Prosecution Insights