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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Pages 8-10 of the remarks, filed 07/16/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claims 1, 2, and 14 under 102(a)(2) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn.
Examiner acknowledges that Nichols does not teach the new limitations of Claim 1, specifically calculating a three-dimensional measurement line connecting the designated points on the three-dimensional space and line-scanning the three-dimensional measurement line from the one designated point towards the other designated point.
Examiner acknowledges that Nichols does not teach the new limitation of Claim 2, specifically that the measurement system only extracts measurement points within a predetermined distance in the respective X, Y, and Z directions from the three-dimensional measurement line.
Examiner acknowledges that Nichols does not teach the new limitations of Claim 14, specifically that the non-prism measurement is a line-scanning measurement.
However, upon further consideration, new grounds of rejection are made in view of Kludas (US 2012/0062868 A1) and Marrion (US 2010/0166294 A1).
Examiner’s Remarks
Regarding Claim 15, the examiner considers “a storage medium storing a computer program” recited in the claim to comprise hardware. Interpreting the Claim in light of the specification, the examiner finds the storage medium to be non-transitory, and further notes that [0057] states that “the storage unit 29 consists of, for example, a memory card, an HDD, etc. In the storage unit 29, a survey program to be executed by the arithmetic processing unit 23 is stored.”
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.
Claims 1-17 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the one designated point" in Line 11. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation of “the other designated point” in Line 12. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation of “the measuring target” in Line 15. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 2 recites the limitation of “the respective X, Y, and Z directions” in Line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 16 recites the limitation of “the measuring target” in Lines 3 and 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
All other claims are rejected due to claim 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.
Claims 1, 3, 4, 8, 11, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nichols (US 2015/0153444) in view of Kludas (US 2012/0062868 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Nichols discloses a measurement system, wherein by using a measuring device including a distance-measuring unit ([0007]) configured to perform a non-prism measurement ([0025], ‘radar scanning’ is a non-prism measurement) of a distance and an angle to a measurement point ([0024], “one or more of geospatial data ( e.g., coordinates, etc.), distance, and an azimuth relative to the position of the device, may be determined for each data point detected”), the measurement system performs measures and acquires three-dimensional coordinates of points on a three-dimensional space ([0025]: “A spatial model, such as a three-dimensional point cloud, may be determined based on the detected data points.”) and from three-dimensional coordinates of measurement points measured near the three-dimensional measurement line, calculates measurement results of a member spacing and/or a member thickness of the measuring target ([0074], “According to one embodiment, data points detected by an integrated radar sensor may be employed to generate a spatial model,” which would necessarily include distances or spacings between construction members such as studs or two walls in a room.; [0088], “device 705 may determine one or more of an angular offset, height, length, distance, and coordinate determination for one or more data points or regions of a captured image data.”) , and displays the measurement results on a display unit ([0081], “…a device may be configured to display spatial model 420.”).
Nichols does not teach and Kludas does teach wherein the points are designated ([0011], [0022]).
Nichols does not teach and Kludas does teach calculating a three-dimensional measurement line connecting the designated points on the three-dimensional space (Figure 14, Step 1450; [0183]: “other positions to be measured are defined between the first and second sub image by processing at least one of the first sub image and the second sub image by defining the other positions along a line connecting at least two measurement pixels,” which therefore means that a line must be calculated in the three-dimensional space).
Nichols does not teach and Kludas does teach line-scanning the three-dimensional measurement line from the one designated point toward the other designated point ([0184]: “In operations 1455 and 1460, the optical axis of the lens arrangement is adjusted onto the other positions and the distances to the other positions are measured.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the measurement system of Nichols with the teaching of Kludas to calculate a measurement line between two designated points then measure other points along the line. Kludas notes in [0011] that having an operator choose positions of interest allows the systems “to reduce the positions to be measured to prominent positions being representative for the positions of the area of interest.” Reducing the number of positions to be measured can result in more rapid acquisition of measurements overall, and more efficient usage of operator time.
Regarding Claim 3, Nichols in view of Kludas teaches all the limitations of Claim 1 as shown in the analysis above, and Nichols further discloses wherein the measurement system continues the measurement of the three-dimensional measurement line repeatedly and always updates and displays the measurement results ([0025], Nichols notes that the device provides ‘real time detection of one or more objects,’ which includes objects in motion. Nichols also states that ‘a plurality of objects may be tracked,’ by the sensor, which implies continuous updates of object positions in time.)
Regarding Claim 4, Nichols in view of Kludas teaches all the limitations of Claim 1 as shown in the analysis above, and Nichols further discloses wherein the measurement system sets a plurality of the three-dimensional measurement lines (Figure 4 shows a spatial model comprised of several three-dimensional measurement lines; [0080]: “device 400 may assign one or more lines or vectors connecting data points, shown as 425, to define the surface of the structure”) , and measures each of the three-dimensional measurement lines in order ([0062]: Data point detection at block 210 may be based on horizontal and/or vertical scanning. In one embodiment, data points may be detected at block 210 by generating a sweep signal configured to detect a plurality of data points during a single sweep.” The term ‘sweep’ here involves detection along one line, followed by detection along another line, and so on.)
Regarding Claim 8, Nichols in view of Kludas teaches all the limitations of Claim 1 as shown in the analysis above, and Nichols further discloses wherein the measurement system sets measurement intervals of the measuring device to even intervals in a real space on the three-dimensional measurement line ([0074] describes setting the measurement grid pattern used to calculated the spatial model to “a plurality of square shaped grid elements, such as grid element 346, wherein the grid elements are aligned in vertical and horizontal rows.”; That these measurement grid squares are the same size can be seen in Figure 3, element 346).
Regarding Claim 11, Nichols in view of Kludas discloses all the limitations of Claim 1 as shown in the analysis above, and Nichols further discloses wherein the measuring device is a surveying instrument capable of performing a non-prism distance measurement from a phase difference between reflected distance-measuring light reflected from the measurement point and reference light ([0026] describes a ‘chirp sweep’ or FMCW radar system. In such systems, the observed signal is mixed with a local, reference signal, and the resultant measurement signal is primarily due to the frequency difference and phase difference between the returned signal and the reference).
Regarding Claim 13, Nichols in view of Kludas teaches all the limitations of Claim 11 as shown in the analysis above, and Nichols further discloses wherein the designated point is designated by a target configured to enable offset observation of the designated point ([0039], stored data points may be associated with a reference point including geospatial data; [0093], “a target or reference point may be place on or near an object and that may be detected and utilized for aligning image data and the spatial model. Target 1001 may relate to a target that may be detected by imaging and may reflect/absorb radar waves in such a way to appear in the spatial model”).
Regarding Claim 18, which depends from rejected Claim 1, Nichols does not teach and Kludas does teach wherein the measurement system performs scanning only on the three-dimensional measurement line connecting the designated points ([0183]: “other positions to be measured are defined between the first and second sub image by processing at least one of the first sub image and the second sub image by defining the other positions along a line connecting at least two measurement pixels,” which therefore means that a line must be calculated in the three-dimensional space ; [0184]: “In operations 1455 and 1460, the optical axis of the lens arrangement is adjusted onto the other positions and the distances to the other positions are measured.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the measurement system of Nichols with the teaching of Kludas to calculate a measurement line between two designated points then measure other points along the line. Kludas notes in [0011] that having an operator choose positions of interest allows the systems “to reduce the positions to be measured to prominent positions being representative for the positions of the area of interest.” Reducing the number of positions to be measured can result in more rapid acquisition of measurements overall, and more efficient usage of operator time.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nichols in view Kludas as applied to Claim 1, and further in view of Marrion (US 2010/0166294 A1). Regarding Claim 2, Nichols in view of Kludas teaches all of the limitations of Claim 1 as shown in the analysis above. Nichols teaches using the extracted measurement points as the measurement points measured near the three-dimensional measurement line, calculates the measurement results (after the extraction of some measurement points based on range, the calculation of measurement results on the extracted points would proceed the same as outlined in the Claim 1 analysis above).
Nichols in view of Kludas does not teach and Marrion does teach wherein the measurement system extracts only measurement points within a predetermined distance in the respective X, Y, and Z directions from the three-dimensional measurement line on the three-dimensional space ([0092]: “the process can employ the general technique of defining geometric "pipes" of a given tolerance around model line segments. When all, or a predetermined (and potentially substantial) proportion, of the endpoints of the found line segments reside within a pipe, the candidate pose between the model and found line segments is retained for refined scoring.” This procedure checks if 3D point cloud data are within a “predetermined tolerance distance DP” of a line segment. Given that the line segments can have an arbitrary orientation in 3D space, the tolerance distance defines unique distances in the X, Y, and Z directions.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the measurement device of Nichols in view of Kludas with the teaching of Marrion to extract 3D data points from the point cloud if they are within a predetermined distance of a line. Marrion notes in [0011] that extracting subsets of data from the 3D point cloud can “reduce processing overhead and increase speed.” These features would be advantageous to surveying field work, making it faster and more efficient.
Claims 5-7 and 9, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nichols in view Kludas as applied to Claim 1, and further in view of Okada (EP 3447444A1).
Regarding Claim 5, Nichols in view of Kludas teaches all the limitations of Claim 1 as shown in the analysis above. Nichols does not teach and Okada does teach wherein the measurement system designates three or more points as the designated points, calculates a cross section defined by the designated points on the three-dimensional space as a measurement area, and performs the non-prism measurement of the measurement area (Figure 14 shows a surveying device and its target, in this case a pile being driven, along with four measurement points which define a measurement area. [0035] notes that a horizontal measurement occurs at both heights H1 and H2, and the flowchart of Figure 13 indicates the horizontal measurements are both defined by two points. Thus, the measurement area is defined by four points total, and the measurement is performed within that range.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the measurement device of Nichols in view of Kludas with the area measurements of Okada. Areal or cross-sectional measurements allow for the determination of an inclination angle of a construction member (a piling, in the case of Okada), (see Figure 15; [0037] states that “an inclination of the pile x is performed by comparing data 30 about the center position O1 of the upper side height position H1 with data about a center position O2 of the base side height position H2”). Okada notes in [0041] that the inclination angle can be used to trigger an alarm if the measured value is beyond a threshold.
Regarding Claim 6, Nichols in view of Kludas teaches all the limitations of Claim 1 as shown in the analysis above. Nichols in view of Kludas does not teach and Okada does teach wherein the measurement system measures a temporary designated point ([0032] describes the abnormal measurement state in which one of the measurement positions is unable to be measured. In this case, a correction procedure is implemented, making the current measurement position temporary) that becomes the designated point by being extended by a known distance ([0032]: “in the case of the abnormal measurement state, the distance measurement member horizontal angle rotating member is driven in such a way as to move the direction of the distance measurement member by a predetermined movement amount in a direction of a side which is not in the abnormal measurement state”) along a three-dimensional arbitrary straight-line direction, and calculates coordinates as the three-dimensional coordinates of the designated point by correcting coordinates of the temporary designated point by a direction cosine of the extension straight-line direction and the known distance (Okada notes in [0027] that all horizontal distances are calculated from the raw distance using R = R’cosθ).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the measurement device of Nichols in view of Kludas with the designated point adjustment of Okada. Okada notes in [0033] that after the initial setup “distance measurement is performed while the pile x is automatically tracked, so that staff does not need to stay at all times.” This improvement could allow for increased operational time (i.e., operation at times when staff might otherwise not be available, or conversely, decreased labor costs as staff is not required to be present at all times while the construction member (in this case a pile) is put in place.
Regarding Claim 7, Nichols in view of Kludas teaches all the limitations of Claim 1 as shown in the analysis above. Nichols in view of Kludas does not teach and Okada does teach wherein the measurement system measures a temporary designated point different only in height direction from the designated point, and calculates coordinates as the three-dimensional coordinates of the designated point by changing all or at least one of the temporary designated points in height according to the designated point (Okada graphically shows this situation in Figure 16 c, where the measurement points at H2 stay constant, but the points at H1 experience an abnormal measurement state in which they cannot be measured and are therefore temporary before a vertical correction downward. This situation is further described in [0042] and states that the old measurement positions at H1 are decreased by a predetermined distance ΔH).
20) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the measurement device of Nichols in view of Kludas with the designated point adjustment of Okada. Okada notes in [0033] that after the initial setup “distance measurement is performed while the pile x is automatically tracked, so that staff does not need to stay at all times.” This improvement could allow for increased operational time (i.e., operation at times when staff might otherwise not be available, or conversely, decreased labor costs as staff is not required to be present at all times while the construction member (in this case a pile) is put in place.
Regarding Claim 9, Nichols in view of Kludas teaches all the limitations of Claim 1 as shown in the analysis above. Nichols in view of Kludas does not teach and Okada does teach wherein the measurement system displays an alarm when the measurement results are abnormal with respect to a design value ([0041], in regards to the inclination angle of a pile: “Furthermore, an allowable limit θLim of the inclination of the pile can be previously defined, the inclination θ1-2 and the allowable limit θLim can be compared with each other, and, when the inclination θ1-2 has exceeded the allowable limit θLim, a warning signal can be transmitted to the conveyance unit terminal 23.” Note that the conveyance unit terminal 23 is depicted as a computer with a display in Figures 1 and 2.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the measurement device of Nichols in view of Kludas to include the alarm display mechanism of Okada. Indeed, Okada notes in [0040] that “staff present in the ship can know the inclination state of the pile x in real time and can bring the pile x close to the vertical state while performing necessary corrections at appropriate timing based on the inclination state.” The alarm display mechanism provides staff a rapid notification that a measured design value is beyond an allowable tolerance, allowing for correction attempts to commence as soon as possible.
Claims 10 and 12, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nichols in view of Kludas as applied to Claim 1, and further in view of Dieterle (US 2015/0048963).
Regarding Claim 10, Nichols in view of Kludas teaches all the limitations of Claim 1 as shown in the analysis above. Nichols in view of Kludas does teach wherein the measuring device is a scanner device configured to perform a non-prism distance measurement by measuring a time taken for reciprocation between distance-measuring light to the measurement point ([0043]: “Using a 1 GHz bandwidth (e.g., the chirp sweep range), the range resolution of radar sensor 115 may be 0.05 m.” and [0043]: “In certain embodiments, radar sensor 115 may employ pulse integration to provide a 2 cm range resolution with an azimuth resolution of 0.2 deg.”; Together, these statements show that the device of Nichols in view of Kludas acquires both phase measurements from the chirp sweep and time measurements from the pulses, which is typical of FMCW radar systems).
Nichols in view of Kludas does not teach and Dieterle does teach including a deflecting unit (Figure 1D and Figure 2 show the preferred embodiment, which consists of prisms mounted to a rotatable drive as described in [0062] and [0063]) configured to deflect an output direction of the distance-measuring light with respect to a reference optical axis (Figures 3A, 3B, and 3C show details of the operation of the deflection unit, including deflection of the beam 202 from the optical axis 203. [0062]: “the transmission signal is incident on the second optical surface 205 of the prism and is again refracted away from the main axis 203 of the prism (see beam direction 202)”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the measurement of device of Nichols in view of Kludas with the deflection unit of Dieterle, who notes in [0047] that the invention could be used in the field of object monitoring. Dieterle further notes in [0010] that “by directing and/or deflecting the main emission direction of the transmission signal onto the surface of the bulk material, information about the topology of the bulk material can be obtained” and notes in [0004] that “In order to be able to determine the level with greater accuracy, it can be advantageous to use information about the surface topology of the bulk material.”
Regarding Claim 12, Nichols in view of Kludas and further in view of Dieterle teaches all the limitations of Claim 10 as shown in the analysis above, and Nichols further discloses wherein the designated point is designated by a target configured to enable offset observation of the designated point ([0039], stored data points may be associated with a reference point including geospatial data; [0093], “a target or reference point may be place on or near an object and that may be detected and utilized for aligning image data and the spatial model. Target 1001 may relate to a target that may be detected by imaging and may reflect/absorb radar waves in such a way to appear in the spatial model”).
Claims 16 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nichols in view of Kludas as applied to Claim 1, and further in view of Kitamura (US 2012/0256916 A1).
Regarding Claim 16, which depends from rejected Claim 1, Nichols discloses wherein the measurement system calculates numerical values of the member spacing and/or the member thickness (after the extraction of some measurement points based on range, the calculation of measurement results on the extracted points would proceed the same as outlined in the Claim 1 analysis above).
Nichols in view of Kludas does not teach and Kitamura does teach wherein by using the extracted point cloud data, the measurement system determines an area via which points are away from each other as a member spacing of the measuring target, and determines an area of dense points as a member thickness of the measuring target ([0010]; [0181]-[0182] describes using removing ‘mismatched points’ based on their distance from a plane, which separates the data into a roughly co-planar or dense subset representing the plane and a less dense, spread apart subset representing edges; [0091]: “The point cloud data processing device 1 extracts features of an object and generates a three-dimensional model according to the features, based on point cloud data 2 of the object.” Dimensions between individual members (spacings) and of members (lengths, heights, and thicknesses) are inherent in a three-dimensional model.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the measurement device of Nichols in view of Kludas with the teaching of Kitamura to use dense regions and sparse regions of points to distinguish features in a scene and generate a 3D model. Kitamura notes in [0011] that with this teaching “features of the object are extracted from the point cloud data thereof, and a three-dimensional model is automatically generated in a short time.”
Regarding Claim 17, which depends from rejected Claim 16, Nichols further discloses wherein the measurement system sets a scanning interval narrower than a thickness of the member (It is well known in the art that reliable detection of any feature requires that the spatial sampling interval be narrower than the feature. Nichols notes in [0025] that the device can provide “real time detection of one or more objects based on radar scanning with quality precision” and that it is suitable for building models of “one or more physical elements, such as stationary objects, objects in motion, structures, portions of a structure, interior spaces, etc.”).
Claims 14 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kludas in view of Marrion and further in view of Nichols.
Regarding Claim 14, Kludas discloses a measuring method comprising:
a step of designating two or more designated points on a three-dimensional space with respect to a measuring target ([0011], [0022], the operator or an algorithm selects points to be measured on an object);
a step of measuring three-dimensional coordinates of each of the designated points ([0110]: “The positioning unit may be adapted to measure horizontal and vertical angles to the plurality of positions on the object with respect to a reference axis system, such as the Cartesian coordinate system with the origin placed in the optical instrument.” In combination with distances, this gives a three-dimensional coordinate for each point; [0187]: “In an operation 1420, an area to be scanned is defined in the image and in operation 1425, a plurality of measurement pixels of the object are obtained within the area.”) ;
a step of calculating a three-dimensional measurement line formed by connecting the three-dimensional coordinates of the designated points by a straight line ([0183]: “In an operation 1450, other positions to be measured are defined between the first and second sub image by processing at least one of the first sub image and the second sub image by defining the other positions along a line connecting at least two measurement pixels”), and performing non- prism line-scanning measurements of a plurality of measurement points along the three- dimensional measurement line ([0184]: “In operations 1455 and 1460, the optical axis of the lens arrangement is adjusted onto the other positions and the distances to the other positions are measured.”);
Kludas does not teach and Marrion does teach wherein a step of extracting only the measurement points near the three-dimensional measurement line ([0092]: “the process can employ the general technique of defining geometric "pipes" of a given tolerance around model line segments. When all, or a predetermined (and potentially substantial) proportion, of the endpoints of the found line segments reside within a pipe, the candidate pose between the model and found line segments is retained for refined scoring.” This procedure checks if 3D point cloud data are within a “predetermined tolerance distance DP” of a line segment. Given that the line segments can have an arbitrary orientation in 3D space, the tolerance distance defines unique distances in the X, Y, and Z directions.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the measurement device of Kludas with the teaching of Marrion to extract 3D data points from the point cloud if they are within a predetermined distance of a line. Marrion notes in [0011] that extracting subsets of data from the 3D point cloud can “reduce processing overhead and increase speed.” These features would be advantageous to surveying field work, making it faster and more efficient.
Kludas in view of Marrion suggests but does not teach and Nichols does teach a step of calculating measurement results of a member spacing and/or a member thickness of the measuring target from three-dimensional coordinates of the extracted measurement points([0074], “According to one embodiment, data points detected by an integrated radar sensor may be employed to generate a spatial model,” which would necessarily include distances or spacings between construction members such as studs or two walls in a room.; [0088], “device 705 may determine one or more of an angular offset, height, length, distance, and coordinate determination for one or more data points or regions of a captured image data.”) , and a step of displaying measurement results on a display unit ([0081], “…a device may be configured to display spatial model 420.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the measurement device of Kludas in view of Marrion with the teaching of Nichols to develop the point cloud data into a dimensioned spatial model and display the results. Nichols notes in [0084] that using a spatial model of the data “may be useful in tracking objects and/or comparison of spatial models to previously generated spatial models.” This functionality can be useful in regards to verifying that building tolerances are being achieved.
Regarding Claim 15, which depends from rejected Claim 14, Kludas further discloses a storage medium storing a computer program of the measuring method according to claim 14 ([0208]-[0210]).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Hammerer (US 2020/0081098) discloses a hand held, time-of-flight measurement device which includes a scanning deflection unit and is intended to make measurements of distance in a construction site environment.
Kamat (US 9,697,647) discloses a device for capturing construction jobsite depth information using a time-of-flight system with a phase detector.
Rosengaus (US 2013/0096873) discloses a system for acquiring construction site information using a time-of-flight sensor and a phase detector. It also discloses means for scanning output light across the field of regard.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BENJAMIN WADE CLOUSER whose telephone number is (571)272-0378. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30 - 5:00.
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, ISAM ALSOMIRI can be reached on (571) 272-6970. 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.
/B.W.C./Examiner, Art Unit 3645
/YUQING XIAO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3645
Prosecution Insights