DETAILED ACTION
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
1. Previous rejection is withdrawn in view of the Applicant’s amendment filed on 07/15/2026.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 4, 8-9, 14 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ohtomo, US-PGPUB 2019/0186912 (hereinafter Ohtomo) in view of Mattes, US-PGPUB 2003/0126906 (hereinafter Mattes)
Regarding Claim 1. Ohtomo discloses determining a calibrated leveling of a surveying instrument with an accelerometer of the surveying instrument, comprising:
dynamically moving of the accelerometer along a trajectory around a rotation axis of the surveying instrument, the accelerometer being arranged at a known distance with respect to the rotation axis, wherein during the moving of the accelerometer (Paragraph [0063], first sensor and second sensor mounted on the sensor block 55, where the second sensor is an acceleration sensor, Paragraph [0067], sensor block 55 dynamically rotating with respect to the 2 axes of the surveying instrument. Thus, acceleration sensor also dynamically moving as claimed. Since mounted at a specific location of the sensor block 55, the acceleration sensor is obviously arranged at a known distance):
acquiring of a movement profile of the trajectory of the accelerometer using a rotational position encoder for the rotation axis (Paragraph [0064], [0066], rotation of the sensor block 55 detected by encoder. Note. Applicant’s Original disclosure also discloses using rotation position encoder to acquire movement profile of the trajectory), and
sensing an acceleration due to dynamics of the moving of the accelerometer by the accelerometer as accelerometer readings (Paragraph [0063], acceleration sensor senses acceleration readings),
calculating at least one calibration parameter for the accelerometer based on the movement profile of the trajectory (Paragraphs [0070]-[0071], deviation value and correction value), the corresponding accelerometer readings and the distance value, and providing the calibrated leveling to the surveying instrument by applying the at least one calibration parameter to the accelerometer readings (Paragraphs [0070]-[0071], detection result of the second sensor, or acceleration sensor, calibrated based on horizontal and encoder), wherein the deriving of the at least one calibration parameter is performed based on a model of the accelerometer, wherein the model of the accelerometer comprises linear modeling or a modeling of higher order (Paragraphs [0070]-[0071], simple difference or deviation between the angle values is a linear operation or modeling), wherein the deriving of the at least one calibration parameter is performed by calculating a mathematical or statistical estimator or a least square solution for the calibration parameter in the model of the accelerometer (Paragraphs [0070]-[0071], deviation and correction values, both involving mathematical estimation, where deviation is the mathematical difference between angles. Note that the claim recites “mathematical or statistical estimator or a least square solution”, and Ohmoto is only required to meet one of three conditions)
Ohmoto does not explicitly disclose the accelerometer being arranged at a known distance with respect to the rotation axis, given as a fixed stored and/or derived and/or refined distance value.
Mattes discloses the accelerometer being arranged at a known distance with respect to the rotation axis, given as a fixed stored and/or derived and/or refined distance value. (Paragraph [0004]; Abstract; Paragraphs [0001]-[0003], [0006], derived and refined based on the plumb-line length from the center of mass of the acceleration sensor to the axis of rotation, Paragraph [0015], fixed stored and refined, as the positions of the acceleration sensors are uniquely identified and addressed or fixed stored, and strategically positioned, instead of randomly)
At the time of the invention filed, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use the teaching of Mattes in Ohmoto and have the accelerometer being arranged at a known distance with respect to the rotation axis given as a fixed stored and/or derived and/or refined distance value, so as to calibrate (adjust) and obtain accurate accelerometer readings.
Regarding Claim 4. Ohmoto discloses the calibration parameter comprises a bias offset of the accelerometer readings (Paragraphs [0070]-[0071], deviation value)
Regarding Claim 8. Ohmoto discloses a movement profile comprises at least one angular acceleration portion of the moving, based on which the calibration parameter is derived (Paragraphs [0066]; [0070]-[0071], deviation from the angular relationship)
Regarding Claim 9. Ohmoto discloses the moving is done while performing a control according to a desired movement profile and sending the control to a motorized drive mechanism for rotating the rotational axis of the instrument (Paragraph [0065])
Regarding Claim 14. Mattes discloses calculating a centrifugal acceleration at the known position of the accelerometer is calculated as a known acceleration value for the calibrating of the accelerometer when rotating with the angular velocity (Paragraph [0016]-[0018]; Abstract; Paragraphs [0001]-[0009])
Regarding Claim 17. Ohtomo discloses determining a calibrated leveling of a surveying instrument with an accelerometer of the surveying instrument, comprising:
dynamically moving of the accelerometer along a trajectory around a rotation axis of the surveying instrument, the accelerometer being arranged at a known distance with respect to the rotation axis, wherein during the moving of the accelerometer (Paragraph [0063], first sensor and second sensor mounted on the sensor block 55, where the second sensor is an acceleration sensor, Paragraph [0067], sensor block 55 dynamically rotating with respect to the 2 axes of the surveying instrument. Thus, acceleration sensor also dynamically moving as claimed. Since mounted at a specific location of the sensor block 55, the acceleration sensor is obviously arranged at a known distance):
acquiring of a movement profile of the trajectory of the accelerometer using a rotational position encoder for the rotation axis (Paragraph [0064], [0066], rotation of the sensor block 55 detected by encoder. Note. Applicant’s Original disclosure also discloses using rotation position encoder to acquire movement profile of the trajectory), and
sensing an acceleration due to dynamics of the moving of the accelerometer by the accelerometer as accelerometer readings (Paragraph [0063], acceleration sensor senses acceleration readings),
calculating at least one calibration parameter for the accelerometer based on the movement profile of the trajectory (Paragraphs [0070]-[0071], deviation value and correction value), the corresponding accelerometer readings and the distance value, and providing the calibrated leveling to the surveying instrument by applying the at least one calibration parameter to the accelerometer readings (Paragraphs [0063], [0070]-[0071], detection result of the second sensor, or acceleration sensor, calibrated based on horizontal and encoder), wherein the deriving of the at least one calibration parameter is performed based on model of the accelerometer, wherein the model of the accelerometer comprises a model of physical sensing characteristics of the accelerometer comprising physical orientations in the instrument or scaling factors of the axes of the accelerometer (Paragraphs [0070]-[0071], derivation based on the sensor values, converting the mechanical movement into measurable sensor values with high responsiveness, where the tilt change is sensed using the acceleration sensor which measures the physical orientations of the axes of the acceleration sensor ),
Ohmoto does not explicitly disclose the accelerometer being arranged at a known distance with respect to the rotation axis, given as a fixed stored and/or derived and/or refined distance value.
Mattes discloses the accelerometer being arranged at a known distance with respect to the rotation axis, given as a fixed stored and/or derived and/or refined distance value. (Paragraph [0004]; Abstract; Paragraphs [0001]-[0003], [0006], derived and refined based on the plumb-line length from the center of mass of the acceleration sensor to the axis of rotation, Paragraph [0015], fixed stored and refined, as the positions of the acceleration sensors are uniquely identified and addressed or fixed stored, and strategically positioned, instead of randomly)
At the time of the invention filed, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use the teaching of Mattes in Ohmoto and have the accelerometer being arranged at a known distance with respect to the rotation axis given as a fixed stored and/or derived and/or refined distance value, so as to calibrate (adjust) and obtain accurate accelerometer readings.
5. Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ohmoto et al., US-PGPUB 2019/0186912 in view of Mattes, US-PGPUB 2003/0126906 as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of Anderson et al., US-PGPUB 2016/0377650 (hereinafter Anderson)
Regarding Claim 5. The modified Ohtomo does not disclose the calibration parameter comprises a sensitivity matrix of the accelerometer readings.
Anderson discloses real-time accelerometer calibration, including sensitivity matrix of the accelerometer readings (Abstract; Paragraphs [0064]-[0065]; Paragraph [0005]-[0009])
At the time of the invention filed, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use the teaching of Anderson in the modified Ohtomo and have the calibration parameter comprises a sensitivity matrix of the accelerometer readings, so as to calibrate and obtain accurate accelerometer readings.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ohmoto et al., US-PGPUB 2019/0186912 in view of Mattes, US-PGPUB 2003/0126906 as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of Hulsing et al., US pat No. 4,799,385 (hereinafter Hulsing)
Regarding Claim 6. The modified Ohmoto does not disclose a calibration parameter comprises a time delay offset of the accelerometer readings with respect to the movement profile.
Hulsing discloses a time delay offset of the accelerometer readings to obtain corrected angular velocity (Col. 6, lines 18-68; Col. 7, lines 1-38)
At the time of the invention filed, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use the teaching of Hulsin in the modified Ohmoto and have a calibration parameter comprises a time delay offset of the accelerometer readings with respect to the movement profile, so as to obtain accurate acceleration.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ohmoto et al., US-PGPUB 2019/0186912 in view of Mattes, US-PGPUB 2003/0126906 as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of Fukushima et al., US-PGPUB 2012/0130667 (hereinafter Fukushima)
Regarding Claim 7. The modified Ohtomo does not disclose the movement profile comprises at least one portion of constant rotational speed movement based on which the calibration parameter is derived.
Fukushima discloses the movement profile comprises at least one portion of constant rotational speed movement based on which the calibration parameter is derived (Paragraph [0103]; Abstract)
At the time of the invention filed, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use the teaching of Fukushima in the modified Ohtomo and have the movement profile comprises at least one portion of constant rotational speed movement based on which the calibration parameter is derived, so as to perform calibration in a simplified manner with reduction in time.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ohmoto et al., US-PGPUB 2019/0186912 in view of Mattes, US-PGPUB 2003/0126906 as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of Escott et al., US-PGPUB 2017/0192034 (hereinafter Escott)
Regarding Claim 10. The modified Ohmoto does not disclose acquiring the movement profile and sensing an acceleration is synchronized in time.
Escott discloses the synchronizing the encoder and acceleration data (Paragraphs [0003]; [0016]-[0017]; Abstract)
At the time of the invention filed, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use the teaching of Escott in the modified Ohmoto and synchronize acquiring the movement profile and sensing an acceleration in time, so as to perform calibration with higher accuracy and reduction in cost.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ohmoto et al., US-PGPUB 2019/0186912 in view of Mattes, US-PGPUB 2003/0126906 as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of Watson, US Pat No. 5,272,922 (hereinafter Watson)
Regarding Claim 11. The modified Ohmoto does not disclose the deriving of the at least one calibration parameter based on the movement profile comprises a deriving of an angular velocity as a time derivative of angular orientation values from the rotational position encoder or comprises a deriving of an angular acceleration as a second time derivative of angular orientation values from the rotational position encoder.
Watson discloses encoder producing both the angular orientation and angular velocity (Claims 13 and14; Abstract; Note: It is known that derivative of angular orientation is angular velocity and second derivative of angular orientation is angular acceleration)
At the time of the invention filed, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use the teaching of Watson in the modified Ohmoto and perform deriving of the at least one calibration parameter based on the movement profile comprises a deriving of an angular velocity as a time derivative of angular orientation values from the rotational position encoder or comprises a deriving of an angular acceleration as a second time derivative of angular orientation values from the rotational position encoder, so as to perform calibration depending on the type of desired data.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ohmoto, US-PGPUB 2019/0186912 in view of Mattes, US-PGPUB 2003/0126906 as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of Laabs et al., US-PGPUB 2013/0096874 (hereinafter Laabs)
Regarding Claim 16. Ohmoto discloses deriving of the at least one calibration parameter is performed based on a model of the accelerometer (Paragraphs [0070]-[0071])
The modified Ohmoto does not disclose the accelerometer is a micro-electromechanical system (MEMS) accelerometer
Laabs discloses a surveying instrument with MEMS accelerometer (Paragraph [0016])
At the time of the invention filed, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use the teaching of Laabs in the modified Ohmoto and use a MEMS accelerometer, since MEMS accelerometer have known advantages, including small size, low cost and high sensitivity.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 07/15/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive, based on the updated rejection.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HYUN D PARK whose telephone number is (571)270-7922. The examiner can normally be reached 11-4.
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, Arleen Vazquez can be reached at 571-272-2619. 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.
/HYUN D PARK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857
Prosecution Insights