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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
Acknowledgment is made of Applicant’s Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) form PTO 1449.These IDS has been considered.
Examiner’s Note
The Examiner has pointed out particular references contained in the prior art of record within the body of this action for the convenience of the Applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages, paragraph and figures may apply. Applicant, in preparing the response, should consider fully the entire reference as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the Examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is/are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 1, "if the measurement scan data of the measurement scan deviate from the reference data" in lines 6, should be changed to –when the measurement scan data of the measurement scan deviate from the reference data--.
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 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.
Information Disclosure Statement
Acknowledgment is made of Applicant’s Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) form PTO 1449.These IDS has been considered.
Examiner’s Note
The Examiner has pointed out particular references contained in the prior art of record within the body of this action for the convenience of the Applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages, paragraph and figures may apply. Applicant, in preparing the response, should consider fully the entire reference as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the Examiner.
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 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 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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 6-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MUNZERT et al. (DE 102016106648 A1) (herein after MUNZERT) [cited in the IDS filed by the applicant] in view of Shekhar et al. (US20100027861) (herein after Shekhar).
As to claim(s) 1 and 6-8, MUNZERT discloses a method for calibrating a measurement scanner on a laser-working optical unit of a laser working device [see fig.1], the method comprising:
creating a measurement scan of a test body using a measurement beam [see abstract] [For this calibration of the laser deflection system, which may be necessary in advance 2a and 2b, a second target pattern 25 , a second reference pattern 26 and a second actual pattern 27 used. According to 2a This is done by the computing / control unit 19 first the second target pattern 25 over the first data line 20 to the processing unit 4 Posted. In the target pattern 25 These are essentially control values for the at least one scanner…page 9],
and comparing measurement scan data the measurement scan with reference data of the test body [The computing / control unit 19 then performs an actual / setpoint adjustment, in which the sensory detected second actual pattern 27 with the stored second target pattern 25 compares. In the event of a deviation between these two patterns…page 11], and
if the measurement scan data of the measurement scan deviate from the reference data [With the calibrated processing unit 4 This can be done by the computing / control unit 19 predetermined target pattern 28 now without deviation on the object surface 24 as reference pattern 29 to be created. This feature makes the calibration method described below for calibrating the sensor deflection system 12…page 11],
correcting the measurement scanner so that the measurement scan data and the reference data of the test body [In the event of a deviation between these two patterns, the computer / control unit calculates 19 for the laser deflection system 5 at least one correction value and stores it in a correction table. During normal operation of the laser processing apparatus 1 are now at a linkage of the laser deflection system 5 for the respective mirror position, the correction values corresponding to this, which are stored in the correction table, are taken into account. The laser deflection system 5 is thus calibrated…page 3].
[Note: while each unit configured to perform as claimed may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function, because apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does].
MUNZERT discloses all the features of the claimed invention except the limitation such as: “the test body match.
The method of wherein a three-dimensional model of the test body is created using the measurement scan.
The method wherein the test body is a circular test body or has a circular marking.
The method according to claim 7, wherein semi-axes of the circular marking or of the test body are measured in x- and y-directions”.
However, Shekhar from the same field of endeavor discloses a measurement scan data and a reference data of a test body match [@fig.1, ¶0052, 0053];
a three-dimensional model of the test body is created using the measurement scan [see abstract];
wherein the test body is a circular test body or has a circular marking [¶0053];
wherein semi-axes of the circular marking or of the test body are measured in x- and y-directions [¶0053-0054].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to modify the device/method/system of MUNZERT such that the measurement scan data and the reference data of the test body match; the three-dimensional model of the test body is created using the measurement scan, the test body is the circular test body, wherein semi-axes of the circular marking or of the test body are measured in x- and y-directions, as taught by Shekhar, for the advantages such as: the coordinate for vertex of the transformed mesh is adjusted based on the gradients in values of the target scan data in vicinity of the vertex, the segmentation in real time is performed easily in a short time period.
As of claim 2, MUNZERT discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein the measurement beam is deflected by the measurement scanner, wherein the test body with known dimensions is used, and the known dimensions are used as the reference data for the comparison of the measurement scan data [the computer / control unit calculates 19 for the laser deflection system 5 at least one correction value and stores it in a correction table. During normal operation of the laser processing apparatus 1 are now at a linkage of the laser deflection system 5 for the respective mirror position, the correction values corresponding to this, which are stored in the correction table, are taken into account. The laser deflection system 5 is thus calibrated…page 3].
As of claim 9, MUNZERT discloses the method wherein an OCT scanner is used as the measurement scanner, wherein the measurement beam is an OCT measurement beam [page 7].
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-5 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:
As to claim 3, the prior arts alone or in combination fails to disclose the claimed limitations such as “wherein the test body with unknown dimensions is used, and the measurement beam is deflected by the laser-working optical unit to create the measurement scan of the test body, and scan data of the measurement scan of the measurement beam from the laser- working optical unit are used as reference data, which are compared with the measurement scan data of the measurement scan of the test body subsequently carried out with the measurement beam of the measurement scanner.” along with all other limitations of the claim.
As to claim 5, the prior arts alone or in combination fails to disclose the claimed limitations such as “after the correction of the measurement scanner, creating a new measurement scan, and comparing new measurement scan data of the new measurement scan with the reference data” along with all other limitations of the claim.
Claim 4 are allowable due to their dependencies.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MD M RAHMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-9175. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thur.
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.
MD M. RAHMAN
Primary Patent Examiner
Art Unit 2886
/MD M RAHMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2877
Prosecution Insights