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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 04/16/26 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 04/16/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to the rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103, the applicant first states:
PNG
media_image1.png
174
812
media_image1.png
Greyscale
As discussed below, the limitation of “with a high level of geodetic precision” necessitates a 35 U.S.C. § 112 rejection because no definition or context has been given to what constitutes, “high level.” Also, the art does teach the principles of high levels of precision. Paragraphs 0019 and 0059 of Gubler teach “high-precision.” Paragraph 0011 of Siercks teaches “very high geodetic precision.”
Next, the applicant argues:
PNG
media_image2.png
517
664
media_image2.png
Greyscale
This argument is not persuasive for a number of reasons.
First, the applicant is reminded that the examiner gives claims their broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI). Claim 1 is directed to “a geodetic instrument.” In the rejection of claim 1 below, the examiner explicitly stated, “The camera/imaging device of Gubler et al will be broadly construed to serve as the claimed geodetic instrument, as cameras are used in a wide variety of application contexts, including geodesy.”
This interpretation of “geodetic instrument” may be broader than the applicant’s interpretation of the term, but it is still considered reasonable, for the reason that the examiner explained in the rejection.
The applicant appears to be conflating BRI with hindsight reasoning. The examiner applied BRI to construe the camera/imaging device of Gubler et al to anticipate broadly construed recitations of “geodetic instrument.” And when the claim gave more details about the nature of the geodetic instrument, the examiner applied a secondary reference to teach such details.
The examiner further gave the following detailed obviousness rationale: “The examiner considers imaging cameras and laser scanning heads to be obvious replacements for each other, depending on use case (please see further support of this in the pertinent prior art section below). However, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the base structure of Gubler would be not only able but also optimized to provide support for a wide variety of intended uses. It would therefore be obvious to apply the base module of Gubler to support a wide variety of geodetic modules that serve both a surveying function and/or a camera function.”
There is no hindsight being applied here. This is an obviousness rejection, where under BRI, a broad but reasonable interpretation was taken by the examiner to teach some elements, and a secondary reference was applied to teach other elements that were not considered to be explicitly taught in the first reference. A rationale for obviousness was given.
Another reason why the applicant’s argument is not persuasive is because the applicant appears to be distinguishing technologies, such as cameras and total stations/theodolites as non-analogous art and therefore not appropriate for obvious replacement with each other.
However, one of ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA) recognizes the similarities and differences between the two. In terms of similarities, both are optical devices that depend on geometry and perspective. Both also share support structures. For example, it is extremely well-known and well-established to use tripods for both devices, as established by the pertinent prior art that was previously cited. Also, in modern computerized systems, such as with digital cameras and total stations/theodolites, both use electricity or some power source to function.
The main difference between the two is purpose and intended use of function, as well as certain technical elements, such as using lenses differently.
However, the claims are directed to structural and functional elements that intersect more with the similarities between the two, as opposed to their differences. One of the core advantages proposed by the claimed invention is structural, electrical, and data transfer support for various modules. PHOSITA would recognize these elements to apply to a wide variety of technologies, even beyond optical devices. However, PHOSITA would also recognize these elements to pertain to optical devices. Because cameras and total stations/theodolites are both optical devices, they are considered analogous art, in the current claimed context.
One of the KSR rationales for obviousness is “Use of Known Techniques to Improve Similar Art in Same Way.” The examiner considers various optical devices, such as cameras and total stations/theodolites, in the current claimed context, to be comparable devices improved in the same way. That is, both devices need structural support, power, and data transfer. The technical ability existed to improve both types of base devices in the same way, and the result of the improvement is predictable.
Understanding what would be within the skill and knowledge of PHOSITA is not the same thing as applying hindsight reasoning. Similarly, understanding what would be predictable to PHOSITA is not the same thing as applying hindsight reasoning.
Next, the applicant argues:
PNG
media_image3.png
49
642
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
750
617
media_image4.png
Greyscale
This argument is not persuasive for similar reasons as given above.
The examiner has not used the applicant’s invention as a blueprint. The examiner has considered what, based on the total scope of the art, would be known or obvious to PHOSITA. The examiner has also applied BRI to the claims and given explanation and rationale as to the interpretation given.
Here, the applicant appears to try to narrow the scope of what PHOSITA would understand when looking at Gubler and Siercks. The examiner contends that, in view of the many references cited as pertinent prior art, PHOSITA’s level of skill and understanding is not as narrow as what the applicant appears to presume.
Next, the applicant argues:
PNG
media_image5.png
712
615
media_image5.png
Greyscale
This argument is not persuasive for reasons similar to those given above. Furthermore, here, the applicant appears to try to narrow the claims with unclaimed elements. For example, the applicant argues that “the professional, high-precision modules implied by Siercks (as part of a total station) would be significantly heavier and have different power or data interface requirements than a lightweight GoPro camera.”
However, the claims do not appear to specify any specific dimensions or weights or power/data interface requirements.
If there is indeed some sort of weight restriction, such as “the base module supports geodetic modules that weigh over X pounds,” then it is suggested that such elements be explicitly claimed.
Also, here, the applicant only appears to look at the surface and “face” of what Gubler and Siercks disclose, while the examiner, when considering what would be within the skill of PHOSITA has considered the art as a whole, which includes the art cited as pertinent prior art. The applicant appears to apply a narrow interpretation of what Gubler and Siercks teach, as opposed to recognizing the broad scope of what PHOSITA would understand, in view of Gubler and Siercks.
Next, the applicant argues:
PNG
media_image6.png
784
612
media_image6.png
Greyscale
This argument is not persuasive for similar reasons as those given above.
Also, the applicant appears to have narrowed the broad teachings of the art by only focusing on certain aspects of the art’s teaching, while overlooking others. For example, in paragraph 0038, the applicant underlined the following words: “In particular, the scanning module according to the invention can have an inclination sensor and/or a camera for acquiring an image.” (emphasis applicant’s). However, the applicant appears to overlook the teaching of, “In particular, the scanning module according to the invention can have an inclination sensor and/or a camera for acquiring an image.” (emphasis mine). The “or” suggests replacement and not just addition. The art teaches a wide variety of variations that would be well-understood and/or obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art.
Here, the applicant appears to attempt to narrow the broad teachings of the art to only one permissible interpretation, while the art represents many different, permissible embodiments to PHOSITA.
Next, the applicant argues:
PNG
media_image7.png
737
602
media_image7.png
Greyscale
This argument is not persuasive for similar reasons as those given above.
The applicant’s arguments apply an overly narrow interpretation of what the art teaches, while overlooking the broad and diverse embodiments that are represented by the art, as well as the broad scope of what would be “within the skill” or obvious to PHOSITA.
For the reasons above, the rejection is maintained.
Drawings
As stated in a previous action, the drawings filed on 01/21/21 and 03/22/21 are accepted.
Claim Objections
Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 8 has been amended to state, “the geodetic modules comprising - from a set of measurement beam based geodetic surveying modules- at least one of a laser scanning head …” The use of hyphens introduces a grammatical informality. It will be construed that the limitation should state, “the geodetic modules comprising, from a set of measurement beam based geodetic surveying modules, at least one of a laser scanning head …”
Appropriate correction is required.
In the applicant’s 04/16/26 response, the applicant stated, “The claim is amended herein, rendering the objection moot. Applicant therefore respectfully requests the objection to the claim be withdrawn.”
However, in the 04/16/26 claim amendments, although the phrase, “thus forming a geodetic instrument with a high level of geodetic precision” was added before the phrase, “the geodetic modules comprising - from a set of measurement beam based geodetic surveying modules- at least one of a laser scanning head …”, that phrase itself does not appear to be amended. The hyphens still exist.
Because the core limitation that defined the objection has not been amended, the claim objection remains.
Examiner’s Note - 35 USC § 101
For the reasons discussed in a previous action, claims 1-13, 16, and 18 qualify as eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101. The claims do not recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon under step 2A, prong one. For the sake of argument, even if the claims did recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon under step 2A, prong one, the claims also recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application under step 2A, prong two. The claims are directed to a geodetic instrument, which is a particular machine. As such, the claims are not directed to a judicial exception. They qualify as eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-13, 16, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
In the 04/16/26 response, the claims have been amended to include the following amendments:
{claim 1} with a high level of geodetic precision
{claim 8} thus forming a geodetic instrument with a high level of geodetic precision
{claim 12} thus forming a geodetic instrument with a high level of geodetic precision
The phrase, “high level of geodetic precision” is considered indefinite because there is no definition or context claimed as to what constitutes “high level.” Absent specific units or context, this is a relative phrase with a wide scope of interpretations, as to what constitutes, “high level.” For the purposes of examination, the examiner will construe any geodetic instrument that is able to perform its intended function to be at a “high level of geodetic precision.”
All dependent claims depend on independent claims 1 and 8, and they are also rejected, as a result of their dependency.
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(s) 1-6, 8-13, and 16-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gubler et al (US PgPub 20200063913) in view of Siercks et al (US PgPub 20150042977).
With respect to claim 1, Gubler et al discloses:
A geodetic instrument with a high level of geodetic precision (Paragraph 0031 states, “The imaging device 200 may be … any type of imaging device that can be coupled to the gimbal 100 … The imaging device 200 may be of the same type or a different type than the imaging device 104 …”; Paragraph 0081 states, “As used herein, the term ‘camera’ may be used to refer to any imaging device or sensor configured to capture, record, and/or convey still and/or video imagery which may be sensitive to visible parts of the electromagnetic spectrum … and/or other energy …”; The camera/imaging device of Gubler et al will be broadly construed to serve as the claimed geodetic instrument, as cameras are used in a wide variety of application contexts, including geodesy. Please note that the applicant’s own disclosure discloses the use of cameras throughout its disclosure. Furthermore, please note paragraph 0036, which states, “During flight, a GPS receiver on the UAV 210 may provide navigational data to the remote controller 214 for use in determining flight paths and displaying current location through the user interface 216. A vison-based navigation system may also be implemented that tracks visually significant features through image data captured by the imaging device 200 to provide the necessary speed and position of the UAV 210 to the remote controller 214.” One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that what is being described here is a process of drone surveying, which is a type of geodetic survey. Paragraph 0019 states, “for use in high precision activities.” Paragraph 0059 discloses “high-precision calculation.” As stated in the 112 rejection above, any geodetic instrument that is able to perform its intended function will be considered to have “a high level of geodetic precision.”)
a geodetic module supported by a base module (figure 1, references 100, 102, and 104; The camera/imaging device of Gubler et al is broadly construed to serve as the claimed surveying/projection module, while the gimbal/frame of Gubler et al is broadly construed to serve as the claimed base module. Gubler et al also teaches additional embodiments that include additional components connected to the gimbal (such as handheld grip 206) that are also broadly construed to be part of the claimed base module), wherein the geodetic surveying or projection module comprises at least one sensor or projector for acquisition or projection of position data of an object (paragraph 0081 states, “the term ‘camera’ may be used to refer to any imaging device or sensor configured to capture, record, and/or convey still and/or video imagery …”; paragraph 0036 discloses drone surveying, which is a type of geodetic survey) and the base module is without such a sensor or projector for acquisition or projection of such position data of the object (The gimbal 100 of Gubler et al does not include an imaging sensor for surveying purposes.)
wherein the base module comprises:
an electrical power unit for powering the geodetic instrument (paragraph 0032 states, “The handheld grip 206 may include a battery … or other power source to power the gimbal 100, the imaging device 200, and/or the handheld grip 206.”)
a first processor, powered by the electrical power unit, for processing of geodetic data and control of the geodetic instrument (paragraph 0033 states, “The handheld grip 206 may include a control unit … and/or storage capabilities such that image content from the imaging device 200 may be processed or stored within the handheld grip 206.”)
a drive, powered by an electrical power unit, adapted for driving the geodetic surveying or projection module about two rotational axes (paragraph 0023 states, “The gimbal 100 operates to maintain the imaging device 104 in a specified orientation … The gimbal 100 may include a control system 118, either on-board or remote, that provides commands to the motors 112, 114, 116 to maintain the specified orientation of the imaging device 104 based, for example, on information received from sensors … that indicate instantaneous values for or changes in orientation of the imaging device 104 in respect to each of three axes of rotation …”)
at least one angle encoder for measuring the rotational position of the geodetic surveying or projection module with respect to the two rotational axes (paragraph 0029 states, “The sensors 124 may include: accelerometers, gyroscopes, and magnetometers within an inertial measurement unit (IMU) that determine rotation, orientation, and acceleration; rotary encoders that detect angular position of the motors 112, 114, 116 …”)
wherein the base module is without a sensor or projector for acquisition or projection of position data of an object (Here, the claim is broadly worded in that “object” is not defined. Under broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), the examiner will interpret “without a sensor or projector for acquisition or projection of position data of an object” to be referring to the imaging/geodetic module. While the base module, in the current interpretation (i.e. the gimbal), may contain sensors for controlling orientation of the imaging/geodetic module, it is without sensors or projectors for acquisition or projection of position data, as that is the function of the imaging/geodetic module.)
wherein the geodetic instrument comprises:
an optical or electrical contact interface adapted for transmission of data or energy between the base module and the geodetic module (paragraphs 0039-0040 state, “FIG. 3 is a block diagram illustrating components of a computing device 300. The computing device 300 may be a single component of the gimbal 100, the imaging device 200, the handheld grip 206 … The processor 302 may interface with mechanical, electrical, sensory, and power modules via driver interfaces and software abstraction layers …”)
a mechanical interface adapted for mechanical connection of the geodetic module to the base module (paragraph 0021 states, “A frame 102 that secures an imaging device 104 is removably coupled to the gimbal 100 … Each of the motors 112, 114, 116 may include one or more encoders …”)
whereby
the interfaces are designed such that the geodetic module is mountable to the base module and dismountable from the base module by a user (figure 1A; paragraph 0021)
the geodetic instrument is designed for mounting of various geodetic modules of different geodetic type to the base module whereby the various geodetic modules are of a different geodetic sort with respect to each other and execution of accordingly different geodetic functions (paragraph 0031 states, “The imaging device 200 may be a GoPro Hero4, Hero5, or Hero6 camera, however any type of imaging device that can be coupled to the gimbal 100 may be utilized. The imaging device 200 may be of the same type or a different type than the imaging device 104 of FIG. 1A.” (emphasis mine).
With respect to claim 1, Gubler et al differs from the claimed invention in that it does not explicitly disclose:
wherein the base module is configured to receive geodetic surveying modules of different sorts from a set of measurement beam based geodetic surveying modules, the set of geodetic surveying module comprising at least one of a laser scanning head, and an opto-electronic surveying head with a light source for generating the measurement beam, the surveying head comprising an optical sensor for capturing measurement beam reflected from an object point and generating a sensor signal of the captured measurement beam for calculating a distance to the object point
With respect to claim 1, Siercks et al discloses:
wherein the base module is configured to receive geodetic surveying modules of different sorts from a set of measurement beam based geodetic surveying modules, the set of geodetic surveying module comprising at least one of a laser scanning head, and an opto-electronic surveying head with a light source for generating the measurement beam, the surveying head comprising an optical sensor for capturing measurement beam reflected from an object point and generating a sensor signal of the captured measurement beam for calculating a distance to the object point (Siercks et al paragraph 0009 states, “Modern devices can have, in addition to the optical viewing channel, a camera for sighting …”; Figure 1a and paragraph 0062 shows one example of a scanning module that contains both a laser scanner 15 and a camera 16. Paragraph 0038 states, “the scanning module according to the invention can have an inclination sensor and/or a camera for acquiring an image.” Gubler et al discloses a base module (i.e. gimbal) that can support a wide variety of different cameras/imaging modules. The current amendment appears to try to distinguish a camera/imaging module from a laser scanning head/opto-electronic surveying head/scanning module. Siercks et al is being applied to demonstrate that cameras and laser scanning heads/scanning modules are known to work either together or interchangeably. The examiner considers imaging cameras and laser scanning heads to be obvious replacements for each other, depending on use case (please see further support of this in the pertinent prior art section below). However, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the base structure of Gubler would be not only able but also optimized to provide support for a wide variety of intended uses. It would therefore be obvious to apply the base module of Gubler to support a wide variety of geodetic modules that serve both a surveying function and/or a camera function.)
With respect to claim 1, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Siercks et al into the invention of Gubler et al. The motivation for the skilled artisan in doing so is to gain the benefit of providing a user with flexible options of modular devices.
With respect to claim 2, Gubler et al, as modified, discloses:
wherein the geodetic instrument is configured such that all of the mountable various geodetic modules are referenced to one and the same origin of coordinates (suggested by Gubler paragraph 0023, which states, “The gimbal 100 operates to maintain the imaging device 104 in a specified orientation.” As stated above, Gubler paragraph 0031 discloses supporting a wide variety of imaging devices, and one of ordinary skill in the art recognizes that these devices are all able to be mounted so as to maintain the imaging device in the specified orientation, which suggests same origin of coordinates.)
With respect to claim 3, Gubler et al, as modified, discloses:
wherein the geodetic module is designed as a portable stand-alone geodetic module with a battery, a data storage, and a second processor such that temporarily, surveying with the geodetic module dismounted from the base module is enabled (Gubler figure 1, reference 104 and figure 2A-B, reference 200; Gubler paragraph 0031 discloses imaging device as a GoPro camera, which is a popular type of retail device that includes components, such as battery, data storage, and processor. Please also note that in Metzler, figure 3, camera 19 is part of the targeting unit 10.)
With respect to claim 4, Gubler et al, as modified, discloses:
wherein the interfaces are designed such that an operable mounting of dismounted geodetic module to the base module and analogically dismounting of mounted geodetic module is effectable by a single manual action of the user (Gubler paragraph 0021 states, “A frame 102 that secures an imaging device 104 is removably coupled to the gimbal 100.” The single manual action of the user is attachable and removable coupling.)
With respect to claim 5, Gubler et al, as modified, discloses:
wherein the mechanical interface is designed such that a mechanically stable mounting of the geodetic module to the base module is secured by at least one of: a magnet, one screw, one spring-loaded claw, on twistable claw, a bayonet fastening, and one ball lock pin (paragraph 0026 of Gubler et al states, “The attachment arm 120 can include a portion of a locking mechanism (not shown) to securely attach the gimbal 100 to a complementary portion of the locking mechanism … The locking mechanism may include male and female components, frictional components, clamping components, or any other suitable components to achieve locked coupling of the gimbal 100 and the platform. Although Gubler et al does not explicitly name the claimed mount securing mechanisms, one of ordinary skill in the art would consider them obvious to the disclosure of “any other suitable components to achieve locked coupling …” Furthermore, Gubler et al discloses different mounting/securing solutions that one of ordinary skill in the art would consider obvious variants to the claimed mounting/securing mechanisms. For example, the frame 102 serves a similar function of securing a device as a claw and would be considered an obvious alternative in this context.)
With respect to claim 6, Gubler et al, as modified, discloses:
wherein the mechanical interface is designed in such a way that the mounting position of a respective geodetic module is precisely reproducible and thermally stable (Gubler figures 1-2; paragraph 0023 discloses a “specified orientation,” which is a reproducible orientation. Gubler abstract discloses thermal conditioning, which allows for thermal stability.)
With respect to claim 8, Gubler et al, as modified, discloses:
A geodetic instrument base module (figure 1A; Paragraph 0031 states, “The imaging device 200 may be … any type of imaging device that can be coupled to the gimbal 100 … The imaging device 200 may be of the same type or a different type than the imaging device 104 …”; Paragraph 0081 states, “As used herein, the term ‘camera’ may be used to refer to any imaging device or sensor configured to capture, record, and/or convey still and/or video imagery which may be sensitive to visible parts of the electromagnetic spectrum … and/or other energy …”; The camera/imaging device of Gubler et al will be broadly construed to serve as the claimed geodetic instrument, as cameras are used in a wide variety of application contexts, including geodesy. Please note that the applicant’s own disclosure discloses the use of cameras throughout its disclosure. Furthermore, please note paragraph 0036, which states, “During flight, a GPS receiver on the UAV 210 may provide navigational data to the remote controller 214 for use in determining flight paths and displaying current location through the user interface 216. A vison-based navigation system may also be implemented that tracks visually significant features through image data captured by the imaging device 200 to provide the necessary speed and position of the UAV 210 to the remote controller 214.” One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that what is being described here is a process of drone surveying, which is a type of geodetic survey.)
an electrical power unit (paragraph 0032 states, “The handheld grip 206 may include a battery … or other power source to power the gimbal 100, the imaging device 200, and/or the handheld grip 206.”)
a processor powered by the electrical power unit, for processing of geodetic data and control of the base module (figure 3, reference 302; paragraph 0040 states, “The computing device 300 may include a processor 302. The processor 302 may include a system on a chip … or other processors that control the operation and functionality of the gimbal 100, the imaging device 200 …”)
a mechanical interface (figures 1-2; paragraph 0040)
an optical or electrical contact interface (paragraph 0040)
wherein the interfaces are designed for mounting and dismounting by a user of various geodetic modules of different geodetic type, thus forming a geodetic instrument with a high level of geodetic precision (figure 1A; paragraphs 0019, 0021, and 0059)
wherein the processor is adapted for control of a respective module (paragraph 0040)
wherein the base module (as taught above) further comprises:
a drive, powered by the electrical power unit adapted for driving the mechanical interface or the base module about two rotational axes (paragraph 0023 states, “The gimbal 100 operates to maintain the imaging device 104 in a specified orientation … The gimbal 100 may include a control system 118, either on-board or remote, that provides commands to the motors 112, 114, 116 to maintain the specified orientation of the imaging device 104 based, for example, on information received from sensors … that indicate instantaneous values for or changes in orientation of the imaging device 104 in respect to each of three axes of rotation …”)
at least one angle encoder for measuring the respective rotational position (paragraph 0029 states, “The sensors 124 may include: accelerometers, gyroscopes, and magnetometers within an inertial measurement unit (IMU) that determine rotation, orientation, and acceleration; rotary encoders that detect angular position of the motors 112, 114, 116 …”)
With respect to claim 8, Gubler et al differs from the claimed invention in that it does not explicitly disclose:
the geodetic modules comprising, from a set of measurement beam based geodetic surveying modules, at least one of a laser scanning head, and an opto-electronic surveying head with a light source for generating the measurement beam, the surveying head comprising an optical sensor for capturing measurement beam reflected from an object point and generating a sensor signal of the captured measurement beam for calculating a distance to the object point
With respect to claim 8, Siercks et al discloses:
the geodetic modules comprising, from a set of measurement beam based geodetic surveying modules, at least one of a laser scanning head, and an opto-electronic surveying head with a light source for generating the measurement beam, the surveying head comprising an optical sensor for capturing measurement beam reflected from an object point and generating a sensor signal of the captured measurement beam for calculating a distance to the object point (Siercks et al paragraph 0009 states, “Modern devices can have, in addition to the optical viewing channel, a camera for sighting …”; Figure 1a and paragraph 0062 shows one example of a scanning module that contains both a laser scanner 15 and a camera 16. Paragraph 0038 states, “the scanning module according to the invention can have an inclination sensor and/or a camera for acquiring an image.” Gubler et al discloses a base module (i.e. gimbal) that can support a wide variety of different cameras/imaging modules. The current amendment appears to try to distinguish a camera/imaging module from a laser scanning head/opto-electronic surveying head/scanning module. Siercks et al is being applied to demonstrate that cameras and laser scanning heads/scanning modules are known to work either together or interchangeably. The examiner considers imaging cameras and laser scanning heads to be obvious replacements for each other, depending on use case (please see further support of this in the pertinent prior art section below). However, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the base structure of Gubler would be not only able but also optimized to provide support for a wide variety of intended uses. It would therefore be obvious to apply the base module of Gubler to support a wide variety of geodetic modules that serve both a surveying function and/or a camera function.)
With respect to claim 8, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Siercks et al into the invention of Gubler et al. The motivation for the skilled artisan in doing so is to gain the benefit of providing a user with flexible options of modular devices.
With respect to claim 9, Gubler et al, as modified, discloses:
wherein the base module (as taught above) comprises:
a power unit part comprising the power unit (paragraph 0040 discloses power modules; battery teachings discussed above)
a main part (figures 1-2)
whereby the drive (as taught above) comprises:
a first drive unit for rotation of the main part relative to the power unit part about a first axis (suggested by motors 112, 114, and 116, which drive different parts of the imaging device support relative to each other; see paragraphs 0021-0026)
and a second drive unit for rotation of the interface relative to the main part about a second axis (suggested by motors 112, 114, and 116, which drive different parts of the imaging device support relative to each other; see paragraphs 0021-0026)
With respect to claim 10, Gubler et al, as modified, discloses:
wherein the base module is asymmetric with respect to a vertical axis (figures 1-2)
With respect to claim 11, Gubler et al, as modified, discloses:
wherein the mechanical interface and the optical or electrical contact interface are integrated in the second drive unit (paragraphs 0039-0040 disclose computing device and processor being part of numerous components, including gimbal 100, imaging device 200, handheld grip 206, etc …)
With respect to claim 12, Gubler et al, as modified, discloses:
A geodetic surveying module (as discussed in claim 1 above)
a mechanical interface designed for connecting the surveying module to a base module according to claim 8, thus forming a geodetic instrument with a high level of geodetic precision (as applied to claim 8 above; see figures 1-2 and rejection of similar limitation in claims 1 and 8 above)
an optical or electrical contact interface adapted for transmission of data or energy between the base module and the surveying module (as discussed in claim 1 above)
wherein the geodetic surveying module is from a set of measurement beam based geodetic surveying modules of different geodetic type, the set comprising at least one of a laser scanning head, and an opto-electronic surveying head with a light source for generating the measurement beam, the surveying head comprising an optical sensor for capturing measurement beam reflected from an object point and generating a sensor signal of the captured measurement beam for calculating a distance to the object point, or a point or line laser projector (see rejection of claim 8 above)
With respect to claim 13, Gubler et al, as modified, discloses:
wherein the geodetic surveying module is designed as a portable stand-alone geodetic surveying module with a battery, a data storage and a processor such that temporarily geodetic surveying with the surveying module dismounted from the base module is enabled (as taught in claim 3 above)
With respect to claim 16, Gubler et al, as modified, discloses:
wherein the geodetic surveying module comprises: a telescope, or a panorama or wide angle objective, and an illumination light for illumination of the field of view of the telescope or the objective (suggested by GoPro cameras and “any type of imaging device” disclosed in Gubler paragraph 0031)
With respect to claim 18, Gubler et al, as modified, discloses:
wherein the base module is further configured to receive a camera head (Gubler figure 1A and paragraph 0031)
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gubler et al (US PgPub 20200063913) in view of in view of Siercks et al (US PgPub 20150042977), as applied to claims 1-6, 8-13, 16, and 18 above, and further in view of Krude (US Pat 4020648).
With respect to claim 7, Gubler et al, as modified, discloses:
The geodetic instrument according to claim 6 (as applied to claim 6 above)
With respect to claim 7, Gubler et al, as modified, differs from the claimed invention in that it does not explicitly disclose:
wherein the mechanical interface comprises at least three guidance elements with equal angular spacing to each other whereby each guidance element comprises a ball or spherical calotte and a two-point support as a receiving counterpart
With respect to claim 7, Krude discloses:
wherein the mechanical interface comprises at least three guidance elements with equal angular spacing to each other whereby each guidance element comprises a ball or spherical calotte and a two-point support as a receiving counterpart (figure 5 shows a constant velocity torque transmitting joint with equidistant balls to provide support; the claimed limitation is obvious in view of applying a joint, such as the one taught in Krude into the context of Gubler et al to serve as guiding support. As a more general matter, Krude teaches the principle of aligning ball elements at equal angular spacing in a circular manner to provide some sort of mechanical support to an object. Also, please note column 4, lines 16-20, which state, “It will be understood that this invention is susceptible to modification in order to adapt it to different usages and conditions, and accordingly, it is desired to comprehend such modifications within this invention …”)
With respect to claim 7, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Krude into the invention of modified Gubler et al. The motivation for the skilled artisan in doing so is to gain the benefit of providing versatile support for elements.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LEONARD S LIANG whose telephone number is (571)272-2148. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10:00 AM - 7 PM.
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 M VAZQUEZ can be reached on (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.
/LEONARD S LIANG/Examiner, Art Unit 2857 05/02/26
Prosecution Insights