HEXAGON TECHNOLOGY CENTER GMBHDownload PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardMay 28, 202015278009 - (D) (P.T.A.B. May. 28, 2020) Copy Citation UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE United States Patent and Trademark Office Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS P.O. Box 1450 Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450 www.uspto.gov APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. 15/278,009 09/27/2016 Thomas JENSEN K1033.10086US02 4762 57137 7590 05/28/2020 Maschoff Brennan/Hexagon 1389 Center Drive, Suite 300 Park City, UT 84098 EXAMINER JORDAN, ANDREW ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2883 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 05/28/2020 ELECTRONIC Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding. The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication. Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the following e-mail address(es): bisraelsen@mabr.com docket@mabr.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte THOMAS JENSEN, FRANK SAUPE, and BENJAMIN VULLIOUD Appeal 2019-004270 Application 15/278,009 Technology Center 2800 ____________ Before CHRISTOPHER C. KENNEDY, LILAN REN, and MICHAEL G. McMANUS, Administrative Patent Judges. McMANUS, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 seeks review of the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 16–25, 28, 29, and 31–38. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm in part. 1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Hexagon Technology Center GmbH. Appeal Brief dated Nov. 29, 2018 (“Appeal Br.”) Br. 4. Appeal 2019-004270 Application 15/278,009 2 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER The present application generally relates to an optical sensor element for a coordinate measuring machine having a coupling element. Specification filed Sept. 27, 2016 (“Spec.”) 1. The Specification teaches that there is a need to guide an optical fiber from the sensor element to the control unit of the coordinate measuring machine. Id. at 2. Plug-in couplings for optical fibers are known, but cannot be frequently plugged in due to “the high level of sensitivity of the optical interface to contamination and damage.” Id. at 2–3. The Specification further states that “there is a need to change the sensor element relatively frequently.” Id. at 3. It is the object of the present Application to demonstrate an optical interface “capable of withstanding at least 50 000 plug-ins without damage.” Id. Claim 16 is illustrative of the subject matter on appeal and is reproduced below with certain limitations bolded for emphasis: 16. A system comprising a coordinate measuring machine and an optical sensor element for the coordinate measuring machine, wherein the coordinate measuring machine comprises a coupling element on the coordinate measuring machine side and an optical machine contact element, the optical machine contact element being held in a second ferrule surrounded by a guide sleeve as an integral part of the coupling element on the machine measuring side, both the second ferrule and the guide sleeve being supported in a floating fashion in the machine contact element, and the optical sensor element comprises: a coupling element on a sensor element side adapted to be mechanically and optically connected to Appeal 2019-004270 Application 15/278,009 3 the coupling element on the coordinate measuring machine side; and a first optical fiber for transmission of measuring signals in the coupling element on the sensor element side that has an optical interface adapted to be connected to the optical machine contact element of the coordinate measuring machine, which optical interface is formed by an optical sensor contact element, for transmission of optical signals, having a self-centering first ferrule surrounding an end of the first optical fiber, the first ferrule being supported in a floating fashion in the coupling element on the sensor element side, wherein the coupling element on the sensor element side is designed to be connected with the optical machine contact element by a plugging-in operation, the optical machine contact element has a second optical fiber within the second ferrule and the guide sleeve, and the second optical fiber is held at one end in the second ferrule and surrounded by the guide sleeve, the guide sleeve projecting in an axial direction beyond the second ferrule. Appeal Br. 29 (Claims App.) (emphasis added). Appeal 2019-004270 Application 15/278,009 4 REFERENCES The Examiner relies upon the following prior art: Name Reference Date Shahid et al. (“Shahid”) US 6,273,619 B1 Aug. 14, 2001 Cheng US 6,540,411 B1 Apr. 1, 2003 Jovanovich et al. (“Jovanovich”) US 2004/0017981 A1 Jan. 29, 2004 Hamada et al. (“Hamada”) US 2007/0047857 A1 Mar. 1, 2007 Christoph et al. (“Christoph”) US 2010/0014099 A12 Jan. 21, 2010 Cosneau FR 2334969 July 8, 1977 Haussman et al. (“Haussman”)3 DE 102006016056 A14 Oct. 19, 2006 REJECTIONS The Examiner maintains the following rejections: 1. Claim 36 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 2 as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter the applicant regards as the invention. Final Action dated June 11, 2018 (“Final Act.”) 4. 2. Claims 16, 17, 25, 28, 29, 34, 35, 37, and 38 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Haussman in view of Christoph. Id. at 5–17. 3. Claims 18 and 21 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 2 English language translation of WO 2006063838 A1, published June 22, 2006. 3 The listed inventors are Peter Kuhn and Jörg Haußmann. For consistency, we follow the Examiner’s practice of referring to this reference as “Haussmann.” 4 The Examiner relies on a machine translation of Haussman. Answer 3. References to Haussman herein are to the English language translation. Appeal 2019-004270 Application 15/278,009 5 § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Haussman in view of Christoph and further in view of Cheng. Id. at 17–19. 4. Claims 19, 20, 23, and 36 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Haussman in view of Christoph and further in view of Cosneau. Id. at 19– 23. 5. Claim 22 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Haussman in view of Christoph and further in view of Shahid. Id. at 23–24. 6. Claim 24 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Haussman in view of Christoph and further in view of Jovanovich. Id. at 24–25. 7. Claim 31 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Haussman in view of Christoph and Cheng and further in view of Cosneau. Id. at 25–27. 8. Claims 32 and 33 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Haussman in view of Christoph and further in view of Hamada. Id. at 27–29. DISCUSSION Rejection 1. The Examiner rejects claim 36 as indefinite. Id. at 4. Claim 36 provides as follows: 36. The system as claimed in claim 28, wherein a free end of the second ferrule and the guide sleeve each has a chamfer for self-centering during a connecting operation with the optical sensor element, wherein Appeal 2019-004270 Application 15/278,009 6 the chamfer of the ferrule has the ferrule with a conical cross-sectional profile at an end of the ferrule where the cross- sectional profile enlarges moving away from the end of the ferrule; and the chamfer of the guide sleeve has the chamfer as a conical recess with a recess cross-sectional profile at an end of the guide sleeve that narrows moving away from the end of the guide sleeve. Appeal Br. 32 (Claims App.) (emphasis added). The Examiner determines that “[c]laim 36 recites ‘the ferrule’ without indication of which ferrule is being referred to” and that this “renders the claim indefinite.” Final Act. 4. Appellant does not challenge this determination. Appeal Br. 6. Accordingly, we summarily sustain the rejection. See Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (MPEP), 9th ed., § 1205.02 (Rev. 08.2017, Jan. 2018) (“If a ground of rejection stated by the examiner is not addressed in the appellant’s brief, appellant has waived any challenge to that ground of rejection and the Board may summarily sustain it, unless the examiner subsequently withdrew the rejection in the examiner’s answer.”). Rejection 2. The Examiner makes lengthy findings in support of the rejection of claims 16, 17, 25, 28, 29, 34, 35, 37, and 38 as obvious over Haussman in view of Christoph. Final Act. 5–17. The Examiner generally relies on Haussman as teaching an optical coupling and Christoph as teaching a coordinate measuring machine with an optical sensor. Id. Figure 1 of Haussman is reproduced below. Appeal 2019-004270 Application 15/278,009 7 Figure 1 of Haussman shows a plug connector system including housing 2, ferrule 3, and spring 6. Haussman 6–7. Figure 2 of Haussman is also reproduced below. Appeal 2019-004270 Application 15/278,009 8 Figure 2 shows an enlarged view of one of the plugs of Figure 1. Haussman 8. The Examiner finds that ferrule 3 of Haussman falls within the scope of the claimed “second ferrule.” Final Act. 6. The Examiner finds that “coupling only occurs when the optical fibers are butt coupled and the optical fibers are only protected when ensheathed by the ferrule. To achieve both, which is common practice, ‘the end of the optical fiber is surrounded by a ferrule’.” Id. at 7–8. Similarly, the Examiner finds that “per Fig. 2, the end of the ferrule surrounded by coil spring 6 is seen as holding the optical fiber per normal practice in delivering protected presentation of the fiber’s end.” Id. at 8. The Examiner additionally finds that the “optical machine contact element” is taught by “end of ferrule 3 or end of optical fiber therein.” Id. at 5. Claim 16 requires that “the second optical fiber is held at one end in the second ferrule.” Appeal Br. 29 (Claims App.). Similarly, claim 16 requires “the optical machine contact element being held in a second ferrule surrounded by a guide sleeve.” Id. Appellant argues that the claim requires, inter alia, “the optical machine contact element to be in the second ferrule (e.g., ferrule 3 on left side).” Id. at 11. Appellant further argues that the optical fiber of Haussman is shown to extend beyond its ferrule (3) and that the ferrule is shown to be spaced apart from the end of the fiber. Id. at 21. Accordingly, Appellant concludes, the ferrule of Haussman has not been shown to hold the end of the optical fiber. Id. We find Appellant’s arguments to be consistent with record evidence. The Examiner’s finding, that the end of the fiber must be ensheathed within Appeal 2019-004270 Application 15/278,009 9 the ferrule to be protected during coupling, appears to be speculative as the Examiner does not cite any portion of Haussman that specifically supports such finding. See Haussman, Figure 2. Accordingly, we are persuaded of error in the rejection of claim 16 on this basis. As claims 17, 25, 28, 29, 34, 35, 37, and 38 depend from 16 and rely upon the same basis of rejection, we are persuaded of error in the rejection of these claims. Rejections 3–8. The Examiner rejects claims 18–24, 31–33, and 36 as obvious over Haussman and Christoph in combination with certain additional references. Final Act. 17–29. The Examiner relies on the findings discussed above in rejecting each of these claims. Id. Accordingly, for the reasons discussed above, we are persuaded of error in the rejection of these claims. CONCLUSION The Examiner’s rejection of claim 36 as indefinite is affirmed. The Examiner’s remaining rejections are reversed. Appeal 2019-004270 Application 15/278,009 10 In summary: Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 36 112 ¶ 2 Indefiniteness 36 16, 17, 25, 28, 29, 34, 35, 37, 38 103(a) Haussman, Christoph 16, 17, 25, 28, 29, 34, 35, 37, 38 18, 21 103(a) Haussman, Christoph, Cheng 18, 21 19, 20, 23, 36 103(a) Haussman, Christoph, Cosneau 19, 20, 23, 36 22 103(a) Haussman, Christoph, Shahid 22 24 103(a) Haussman, Christoph, Jovanovich 24 31 103(a) Haussman, Christoph, Cheng 31 32, 33 103(a) Haussman, Christoph, Hamada 32, 33 Overall Outcome 36 16–25, 28, 29, 31–35, 37, 38 No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). AFFIRMED IN PART Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation