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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 06/22/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06/22/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues Claim 1 now claims same calibration area.
Examiner disagrees. This is not claimed in amended Claim 1. Further, even if it was, it is unclear how the calibration area can be the same when the sensor is rotating more than 180 degrees.
Applicant argues Ossig teaches full dome measurement, which is the opposite of the claimed workflow.
Examiner disagrees. It is unclear how this is the opposite, as applicant only states that without further explanation. Further, the cited part of Ossig only teaches a 180 degree turn, not a full dome scan. Lastly, Claim 1 recites "wherein the second face being different than the first face in a shift of 180 degrees" which implies a simple 180 degree turn.
Applicant argues Frank does not teach former claim 2 (different calibration positions) as Frank loses track of position.
Examiner disagrees. It is unclear how this is different, as Frank is still performing calibration between the two points. Further, the point of calibration in the claims is an unknown drift, implying one point is not known.
Applicant argues Frank teaches pose of scanner, not flat surface of registration area
Examiner disagrees. Frank is used to teach moving the lasers, while Becker teaches flat surface and the movement of the scanner. Also it is unclear how Frank's method is "teaching away" from the claimed invention as applicant states, as the scanner is still moved.
Applicant Frank fails to teach deviation in [0069], as deviation is an offset between actual and expected value, as once compensated for the deviation is removed.
Examiner disagrees. Before calibration, there is a deviation, and that is what is cited. Further, applicant seems to be arguing that Frank both fails to teach a deviation in this argument, and that Frank loses track of position (see above) and thus does teach a deviation. These two arguments are contradictory.
Applicant argues Frank in [0066] and [0069] does not teach azimuth and elevation axis, as Frank teaches a 2D scanner
Examiner disagrees. Fig. 1 of Frank clearly teaches two rotation axes
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.
Claims 1, 10, and 14-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Becker (US 20150226840 A1) in view of Frank (US 20180052233 A1), further in view of Ossig (US 20200018869 A1).
Claim 1: Becker teaches
A laser scanner designed to generate a three-dimensional (3D) point cloud of a scene ([0017])
the points of the point cloud being provided by polar coordinates consisting of a first angle, a second angle, and a distance (0017]) – measured distance and two angles).
wherein the laser scanner defines an origin of the point cloud ([0025])
comprising:
A base (Figure 4 element 14 and Paragraph 0019 line 4)
a body mounted on the base (Figure 4 element 12 and Paragraph 0019 line 4);
a first motor configured for rotating the body relative to the base around an azimuth axis with a first speed (Paragraph 0019 lines 6-7 — first rotary drive);
a first angle encoder configured for determining a first angle of the body with respect to the azimuth axis (Paragraph 0021 lines 9-10);
an emitter configured for emitting a transmission beam (Figure 4 element 17 and Paragraph 0020 line 2);
a receiver configured for detecting a reception beam (Figure 4 element 21 and Paragraph 0020 line 4);
a deflector mounted in the body and configured for (Figure 4 element 16 and paragraph 0019 line 9):
deflecting the transmission beam from the emitter towards a setting (Paragraph 0020 lines 15- 18),
and deflecting the reception beam from the setting to the receiver (Paragraph 0021 lines 3-4);
a second motor configured for rotating the deflector relative to the body around an elevation axis with a second speed (Paragraph 0019 line 10 — second rotary drive),
the second speed being higher than the first speed (Paragraph 0025, lines 2-5);
a second angle encoder configured for determining a second angle of the deflector with respect to the elevation axis (Paragraph 0021 lines 11-12);
and a processor (Paragraph 0022 lines 1-2) configured for:
determining a distance based on the emitted transmission beam and the detected reception beam (Paragraph 0022 lines 9-12),
and determining a point based on the first angle, the second angle, and the determined distance (Paragraph 0023, lines 18-21, describing a method of triangulation),
wherein the laser scanner has a calibration functionality provided by the processor being further configured for deriving first calibration parameters […] the first calibration parameters being derived by:
rotating the body of the laser scanner about the azimuth axis with the first speed, such that the body is making a turn […] (Paragraph 0019 lines 6-7 — first rotary drive),
rotating the deflector about the elevation axis with the second speed (Paragraph 0019 line 10 — second rotary drive),
generating a 3D point cloud representation of the scene ([0029]),
determining a plurality of first calibration points of the first calibration area in the first face of the laser scanner, the first calibration points being embodied as a first 3D point cloud (Paragraph 0029, lines 6-9 — first scan),
determining a plurality of second calibration points of the same first calibration area in a second face of the laser scanner, wherein the second face being different from the first face, the second calibration points being embodied as a second 3D point cloud (Paragraph 0029, lines 12-15 — second scan).
However, Becker does not teach
The calibration parameters being applied to the intrinsic geometry of the laser scanner to compensate emerging geometry errors in the azimuth axis and elevation axis of the laser scanner,
Fitting a first surface through at least a part of the first calibration points,
Fitting a second surface through at least a part of the second calibration points,
Determining a first deviation based on an offset between a first surface and a second surface
and based on the first deviation, determining first calibration parameters to compensate geometry errors in the azimuth axis and elevation axis of the laser scanner,
wherein the laser scanner is configured that the determining the point is performed under the application of the first calibration parameters for compensating the geometry errors in the azimuth axis and elevation axis of the laser scanner.
Frank teaches
The calibration parameters being applied to the intrinsic geometry of the laser scanner to compensate emerging geometry errors in the azimuth axis and elevation axis of the laser scanner ([0066] – describing shift as scanner rotates to same point again - as this is caused by slight errors in the geometry of the scanner (i.e.: mounting angle, mirror angles). Also Fig. 1, rotation around azimuth and elevation axes 23 and 25 are what’s causing errors).
rotating the scanner in order to capture the same face at a different times (Fig 15, measurements 1510 and 1530), and using a closure correction to mitigate errors (Fig 15, closure correction 1530),
Fitting a first surface through at least a part of the first calibration points ([0062] lines 1-7 – describing calibration points (registration targets) in each surface),
Fitting a second surface through at least a part of the second calibration points ([0062] lines 1-7 – describing calibration points (registration targets) in each surface),
Determining a first deviation based on an offset between a first surface and a second surface ([0067] lines 6-9)
and based on the first deviation, determining first calibration parameters, wherein the laser scanner is configured that the determining the point is further based on the first calibration parameters (Paragraph 0069 lines 1-7),
to compensate geometry errors in the azimuth axis and elevation axis of the laser scanner, wherein the laser scanner is configured that the determining the point is performed under the application of the first calibration parameters for compensating the geometry errors in the azimuth axis and elevation axis of the laser scanner (Fig. 15 and Intended use).
It would have been obvious to add the method of determining calibration parameters as taught by Frank to the laser scanner as taught by Becker because the method of determining calibration parameters is an obvious next step to Becker’s invention as Becker already discloses two calibration areas, and determining said parameters allows the calibration areas to be used. Further, it would have been obvious to take Becker’s 3D point clouds and convert them to 2D point clouds for calibration purposes, which would enable faster processing. Further, the method of determining calibration parameters is an obvious next step to the scanner as Becker, as modified, already discloses calibration points, and it is well known in the art that multiple points can comprise a plane. Further, a plane gives one an average to compare against, rather than having to compare against multiple individual points.
Becker, as modified in view of Frank, does not teach, but Ossig does teach, such that the body is making a turn of more than 180 such that a first calibration area of the setting is recorded from both a first face of the laser scanner and a second face of the laser scanner, wherein the second face being different from the first face in a shift of 1800 of an azimuthal alignment of the body ([0048]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to someone having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the 180 degree turn, as taught by Ossig, in the scanner as taught by Becker, as modified in view of Frank, because, as Frank and Ossig have the same scanner layout (Frank Fig. 1 and 2, Ossig Fig. 1 and 2), and so the 180 degree turn could be easily implemented into Frank, and would allow faster scanning as less rotation between scans would be needed.
Claim 10: Becker, as modified, teaches the laser scanner according to claim 1, but not wherein the processor is further configured for: - determining a plurality of first discovery points of a discovery area of the setting in the first face, wherein the discovery area comprises the first calibration area, - determining one or more calibration area candidates, and - receiving a selection of at least the first calibration area one or more calibration area candidates.
Frank teaches
The laser scanner according to claim 1, wherein the processor is further configured for: - determining a plurality of first discovery points of a discovery area of the setting in the first face, wherein the discovery area comprises the first calibration area, - determining one or more calibration area candidates, and - receiving a selection of at least the first calibration area one or more calibration area candidates (Paragraph 62, lines 1-7 — describing choosing calibration areas and points).
It would have been obvious to add the method of determining discovery points and discovery points as taught by Frank to the scanner as taught by Becker, as modified, because it is applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results. Determining discovery points allows one to know exactly which points are being used in future steps, and therefore allows any errors to be better resolved.
Claim 14: Becker, as modified, teaches the laser scanner according to Claim 10, but not wherein the processor is further configured for: - determining a plurality of second discovery points of the discovery area of the setting in the second face, wherein the second discovery points comprise the second calibration points.
However, Frank teaches
wherein the processor is further configured for: - determining a plurality of second discovery points of the discovery area of the setting in the second face, wherein the second discovery points comprise the second calibration points (Paragraph 0062, lines 1-7 — describing the calibration points).
It would have been obvious to add the method of determining discovery points as taught by Frank to the previously described scanner as taught by Becker, as modified, because it is applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results. Determining discovery points allows one to know exactly which points are being used in future steps, and therefore allows any errors to be better resolved.
Claim 15: Becker, as modified, teaches the laser scanner according to Claim 10, but not wherein the processor is further configured for: - generating or receiving a selection of at least a second calibration area out of the one or more calibration area candidates, - determining at least a second calibration area candidate, and - receiving a selection of at least the second calibration area out of the calibration area candidates, - defining first discovery points in the second calibration area as third calibration points, - determining a plurality of fourth calibration points of the second calibration area in the second face, - determining a second deviation between: at least part of the second calibration area as determined with the third calibration points and at least part of the second calibration area as determined with the fourth calibration points, and - based on the second deviation, determining second calibration parameters, wherein determining the point is further based on the second calibration parameters.
Frank teaches
wherein the processor is further configured for:
- generating or receiving a selection of at least a second calibration area out of the one or more calibration area candidates, - determining at least a second calibration area candidate, and- generating or receiving a selection of at least the second calibration area out of the calibration area candidates, - defining first discovery points in the second calibration area as third calibration points, - determining a plurality of fourth calibration points of the second calibration area in the second face (Paragraph 62, lines 1-7 — describing choosing calibration areas and points)
- determining a second deviation between: at least part of the second calibration area as determined with the third calibration points and at least part of the second calibration area as determined with the fourth calibration points (Paragraph 0067, lines 6-9, and Fig. 10, showing first registration position 1112 below second position 1114), and
- based on the second deviation, determining second calibration parameters, wherein determining the point is further based on the second calibration parameters (Paragraph 0069 lines 1-7).
It would have been obvious to add the method of determining discovery points and deviations between them, and further calibration parameters as taught by Frank to the previously described scanner as taught by Becker, as modified, because it is applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results. Determining calibration parameters allows for more streamlined comparisons between theoretical and actual points later in the process, which speeds up the system.
Claim 16: As Claim 16 is a method claim corresponding to Claim 1, see rejection above.
Claim 17: Becker, as modified, teaches the laser scanner according to claim 15, wherein the first calibration area and the second calibration area are apart from each other in the elevation range (Frank Fig. 10, first position 1112 and second position 1114 spaced apart in elevation range).
Claims 5-7 and 9 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Becker (US 20150226840 A1) in view of Frank (US 20180052233 A1), further in view of Ossig (US 20200018869 A1), and further in view of Wu (US 20180313942 A1).
Claim 5: Becker, as modified, teach the laser scanner according to claim 2, but not wherein the processor is configured for fitting a first plane in at least part of the first calibration points, wherein the first surface is the first plane.
Wu teaches wherein the processor is configured for fitting a first plane in at least part of the first calibration points, wherein the first surface is the first plane (Paragraph 0041 lines 8-10).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention taught by Becker, as modified, with the method of fitting a plane as taught by Wu because it is applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results. The method of fitting a plane allows one to determine a normal vector, as taught in Wu (Paragraph 0041 lines 10-11) which allows for more methods to be implemented to determine discrepancies.
Claim 6: Becker, as modified, teach the laser scanner according to claim 2, but not wherein the processor is configured for fitting a second plane in at least part of the second calibration points, wherein the second surface is the second plane.
Wu teaches wherein the processor is configured for fitting a second plane in at least part of the second calibration points, wherein the second surface is the second plane (Paragraph 0041 lines 10-11).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention taught by Becker, as modified, with the method of fitting a plane as taught by Wu because it is applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results. The method of fitting a plane allows one to determine a normal vector, as taught in Wu (Paragraph 0041 lines 10-11) which allows for more methods to be implemented to determine discrepancies.
Claim 7: Becker, as modified, teaches the laser scanner according to claim 5, and Frank teaches wherein the processor is configured to determine an angle between the first plane and the second plane, wherein the calibrating is further based on the angle (Paragraph 0069 lines 1-7 — “first rotation value”).
Claim 9: Becker, as modified, teaches the laser scanner according to claim 1 teaches the laser scanner according to claim 4, but not wherein the processor is configured for fitting a second plane in at least part of the second calibration points, wherein the second surface is the second plane.
Wu teaches wherein the processor is configured for fitting a second plane in at least part of the second calibration points, wherein the second surface is the second plane (Paragraph 00411 lines 10-11).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention taught by Frank and Becker with the method of fitting a plane as taught by Wu because it is applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results. The method of fitting a plane allows one to determine a normal vector, as taught in Wu (Paragraph 0041 lines 10-11) which allows for more methods to be implemented to determine discrepancies.
Claims 11-13 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Becker (US 20150226840 A1) in view of Frank (US 20180052233 A1), in view Ossig (US 20200018869 A1), further in view of Sasaki (US 20190170865 A1).
Claim 11: Becker, as modified, teaches the laser scanner according to claim 10, but not wherein determining the one or more calibration area candidate is based on an analysis of the discovery points.
Sasaki teaches wherein determining one or more calibration area candidate is based on an analysis of the discovery points (Paragraph 0060 lines 6-7).
It would be obvious to combine the method of using discovery points to determine a calibration area candidate as taught by Sasaki to the scanner as taught by Becker, as modified, because, as Sasaki teaches, this method is part of a method to eliminate noise by eliminating points that do not fit the plane (See Sasaki [0012] – note other steps are in Claims 12 and 13).
Claim 12: Becker, as modified, further in view of Sasaki, teaches the laser scanner according to Claim 11, but only Sasaki teaches wherein the analysis of the discovery points is based on: - at least one distribution criterion of the distances and second angles of the respective discovery points located in the calibration area candidate, or - at least one fitting criterion which concerns a fitting of a plane in at least part of the respective discovery points located in the calibration area candidate (Sasaki [0061] lines 1-2).
It would be obvious to combine the method of analyzing discovery as taught by Sasaki to the scanner as taught by Becker, as modified, because, as Sasaki teaches, this allows for points to be compared against a plane, and points that don’t fit the plane to be eliminated, thus eliminating noise (See Sasaki [0012]).
Claim 13: Becker, as modified, further in view of Sasaki, teaches the laser scanner according to claim 12, but only Sasaki teaches
wherein the selection is based on a weighting attributed to the calibration area candidate, , ([0064], lines 1-6, where the distribution criterion is the separation amount),
and - a measuring quality of the respective discovery points located in the calibration area candidate with respect to a reception beam quality or a reception beam intensity.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention taught by Becker, as modified, with the discovery point analysis as taught by Sasaki because it is applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results. Comparing planes instead of points would allow for faster processing speed as comparing two planes requires less equations than comparing two point clouds with a multitude of individual points in both.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CLARA CHILTON whose telephone number is (703)756-1080. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 6-2 MT.
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, Helal Algahaim can be reached at 571-270-5227. 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.
/CLARA G CHILTON/ Examiner, Art Unit 3645
/HELAL A ALGAHAIM/ SPE , Art Unit 3645
Prosecution Insights