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.
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-7 and 9-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Zweigle et al (11,879,997).
Regarding claims 1, 9 and 15 Zweigle discloses,
Obtaining depth data of one or more features on the part as scanned by a plurality of depth imaging devices (note col. 11 lines 50-58, depth camera acquires depth information of an object to be scanned);
Establishing origin of a three-dimensional coordinate system in the depth data (note col. 12 lines 64- col. 13 lines 5, from data acquired from depth camera three-dimensional coordinate is determined); and
Determining a measured distance for at least one feature of the one or more features from the depth data (note col. 12 lines 65-66 distance determined from data acquired by depth camera) and based at least upon an inspection plan and the origin of the three-dimensional coordinate system (note col. 12 lines 60-63 and col. 13 lines 4-7, cites three-dimensional coordinate and three-dimensional map).
Regarding claims 2, 10 and 16 Zweigle discloses
Wherein determining the measured distance for the at least one feature comprises determining a plurality of distances from a first surface of the at least one feature to a second surface and using the plurality of distances to determine the measured distance (note col. 13 lines 36-45, describes performing surface analysis of objects).
Regarding claims 3, 11 and 17 Zweigle discloses,
Wherein using the plurality of distances to determine the measured distance comprises fitting the plurality of distances to a distribution and using a mean of the distribution as the measured distance (note col. 13 lines 54- col. 14 lines 5, cites plane fit to an area and geometry distribution of distance).
Regarding claims 4, 12 and 18 Zweigle discloses
Outputting a result including the measured distance for at least one feature (note fig. 18 block 214 and col. 15 lines 45-50, resulted anomalies are displayed).
Regarding claims 5 and 13, Zweigle discloses,
Wherein determining the plurality of distances from the first surface to the second surface comprises, in a cross section of the depth data at an area of interest for the at least one feature, fitting a reference plane to the depth data representing the first surface, and using the reference plan to determine the plurality of distances to depth data representing the second surface (note col. 13 lines 36-45, describes performing surface analysis of objects).
Regarding claims 6 and 19 Zweigle discloses,
Aligning a reference datum to a predefined surface of the part in the depth data (note col. 13 lines 60 – col. 14 lines 8, examiner interprets comparing surface information as aligning reference datum).
Regarding claims 7, 14 and 20 Zweigle discloses,
Comparing the measured distance to a predetermined tolerance condition for the at least one feature, and if the measured distance does not meet the predetermined tolerance condition, flagging the measured distance as anomalous in the result (note col. 13 lines 53-60, cites distance and comparing).
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.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zweigle in view of official notice
Regarding claim 8 Zweigle discloses depth data,
Zweigle does not clearly disclose removing noise in the depth data. The examiner asserts removing noise in depth data to be well‐known, or to be common knowledge in the art. Examiner takes official notice. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in prior art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include removing noise in Zweigle depth data. The suggestion/motivation for doing so provides improvement in accuracy in three-dimensional analysis.
Related Prior art
Kitamura et al (9,207,069) Establishing an origin of a three-dimensional coordinate system in the depth data (note fig. 28 block 74, block cites 3D coordinate calculation unit).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GREGORY M DESIRE whose telephone number is (571)272-7449. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 6:30am-3:00pm.
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, Henok Shiferaw can be reached at 571-272-4637. 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.
G.D.
August 22, 2026
/GREGORY M DESIRE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2676
Prosecution Insights