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 .
Status of Claims
This office action is responsive to the amendment filed 12/5/2025. As directed by the amendment, claims 1 and 9 are amended. Thus, claims 1-18 are currently pending in this application.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 12/5/2025 has been fully considered. Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On page 9, applicant argues that the addition of “computer readable” to the limitation of “targeting state information,” resulting in “computer readable targeting state information,” would differentiate their invention from the prior art of record. Applicant further argues that the prior art reference does not teach that the detector is operatively coupled to the computer. MPEP section 2144.01 states: "[I]n considering the disclosure of a reference, it is proper to take into account not only specific teachings of the reference but also the inferences which one skilled in the art would reasonably be expected to draw therefrom." Since the Hinderling2 reference discloses that their method for detection can be carried out via a computer program product sored on a machine readable carrier, a person of ordinary skill in the art would determine that the detector must operatively be connected to a computer (See Hinderling2, paragraph [0109]). Furthermore, there is no suggestion that the “targeting state information” in the disclosure is not computer readable. Actually, Hinderling2 even discloses that the camera may be a CMOS image sensor in paragraph [0120], which converts optical signals to electrical signals. Electrical signals are computer readable. Since this invention, disclosed by Hinderling2, also can involve automatic detection and recognition, a person of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably conclude that there is a computer or controller that is operatively connected to the necessary system elements for performing detection; this would include a detector. Therefore, the amendment does not overcome the claim rejection and the arguments were not convincing.
On page 9, applicant further argues that an image of the scene is different from “computer readable targeting state information” and applicant seems to assert that displaying an image of the scene to the user somehow precludes any sort of automatic targeting procedure. MPEP 2111 states: “The Patent and Trademark Office ("PTO") determines the scope of claims in patent applications not solely on the basis of the claim language, but upon giving claims their broadest reasonable construction "in light of the specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art." In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech. Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364[, 70 USPQ2d 1827, 1830] (Fed. Cir. 2004).” Displaying an image of the observed scene is quite literally displaying information regarding the targeting state of the system. Under broadest reasonable interpretation, a person of ordinary skill in the art would come to the conclusion that “targeting state information,” can take the form of an image of the observed scene.
Furthermore, applicant refers to Hinderling2 paragraph [0111], which states that the image can be performed by a camera, and this image can be seen on a monitor or display screen. This display screen can be on the device, but it can also be external to the device. MPEP section 2144.01, quoted above, discusses implicit disclosure. A person of ordinary skill in the art of lidar technologies would reasonably conclude that if a camera image is to be displayed on a monitor or display screen external to the device, that this image information must be computer readable. Furthermore, Hinderling2 even discloses that the camera may be a CMOS image sensor in paragraph [0120], which converts optical signals to electrical signals. Electrical signals are computer readable. Applicant also does not provide evidence for why displaying an image of the scene or the targeting state to an observer would preclude the system from automatically performing targeting and measuring. Since Hinderling2 discloses a system where automatic targeting can be performed and an image of the targeting can be displayed to the user, a person of ordinary skill in the art would determine that it is in fact possible for the user of an autonomous/automatic system to observe the targeting being performed.
On pages 10-11, applicant argues that the Hofmann reference teaches a manipulation of the received beam. MPEP section 2145.IV states: “One cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).” The Hofmann reference was relied upon to teach the intentional targeting of the measurement beam with a beam offset. As explained in the non-final rejection mailed 9/11/2025: “This teaching could be incorporated into the current instrument taught by Hinderling2, in view of Hinderling, such that the liquid lens, which already exists in the instrument disclosed by Hinderling2 (Fig. 2a, liquid lens 30 in the path of the measurement beam), modifies the transmitted beam path such that a desired portion of the light spot strikes the receiver, as taught by Hofmann in paragraph [0042].” Applicant focuses on the deficiencies of the Hofmann reference rather than considering the combination of prior art references that has been presented. This argument is not convincing and does not overcome the claim rejections.
On page 12, applicant argues that the Hofmann reference is related to measuring a wide range of object conditions, which, according to applicant, would preclude the teachings of Hofmann from being applied to a system measuring shiny/reflective retro-reflective objects. Applicant then quotes an excerpt of paragraph [0003]. This paragraph discusses how Hofmann’s invention will cover a large dynamic range, which includes “specular or glossy” objects as well as dark objects. Since the applicant includes many quotations in the German language, the exact words used by the inventor, in German, are “spiegelnden oder glänzenden” which directly translates to “reflective/specular and shiny/glossy”. Since Hofmann discusses their sensor being used in a wide range of objects with high dynamic range, this includes sensing retro-reflective targets. Systems that are designed to sense retro-reflective targets can still experience issues with detector saturation, and therefore, applying Hofmann’s teachings would still provide the added benefit of keeping the intensity in an ideal range to maintain measurement accuracy.
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 1-12, and 15-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hinderling2 (US 20140307252 A1), in view of Hinderling (US 20160084651 A1), further in view of Hofmann (DE 102016122712 B3).
Regarding Claim 1: Hinderling2 discloses a surveying instrument designed for the determination of the 3D coordinates of a retro-reflective target, (Fig. 2a, device 11, target 40; [0118] “the target object 40 is implemented as a retroreflector”) the surveying instrument comprising:
a radiation source for generating a measuring beam (Fig. 2a, light source 55),
an optical unit for emitting the measuring beam and receiving at least part of the measuring beam retro-reflected from the retro-reflective target and defining a targeting axis (Fig. 2a, objective 6, emitted optical radiation 10z, reflected optical radiation 10y, and target axis 9),
a detector which is suitable for distance measurements, wherein the detector is configured to detect at least part of the measuring beam retroreflected by the retroreflective target (Fig. 2a, measuring light receiver 56),
wherein the detector is shaded ([0167] “in the case of short measuring distances, avoidance of near field shading can be caused”; Fig 13a)
a targeting state indicator comprising a computer operatively coupled with the detector or a second detector (Fig. 2a, ATR light source 12 with camera 13 and liquid lens 30; [0111] the image of the observation is displayed on a monitor or display screen; [0120] the camera is a CMOS sensor, which converts optical signals to electrical signals. Displaying an image from a CMOS sensor on a display screen would lead a person of ordinary skill in the art to reasonably conclude that the camera must be operatively coupled with the computer; [0126] the liquid lens is controlled using a control unit of the surveying device), wherein the targeting state indicator is configured to output computer readable information indicative of a targeting state of the emitted measuring beam with respect to the retroreflective target ([0111] the image of the observation is displayed on a monitor or display screen; [0120] the camera may be a CMOS image sensor which converts optical signals to electrical signals. Electrical signals are computer readable) wherein an on-target state is given in which the targeting state indicator outputs information representing that the measuring beam is retro-reflected by the retroreflective target without beam offset ([0048] Since the beam alignment can be used to form automatic target line stabilization, the information regarding the targeting state must inherently be output),
wherein the surveying instrument is configured to, when performing a distance measurement, automatically target the retroreflector ([0118] the target line is modified using the liquid lens 30, such that “The measuring light or at least a part thereof is now reflected from the target object 40”) and detect, with the detector, the retro-reflected measuring beam and measure the distance ([0119] “The received light signal is therefore conditioned as an electrical signal in block and a distance from the device 11 to the target object 40 is determined by the distance measuring unit 59”).
Hinderling2 does not expressly disclose: the detector is shaded by at least one component of the optical unit, […] use computer readable information outputted by the targeting state indicator indicative of a misaligned targeting state representing that the measuring beam is retro-reflected by the retroreflective target with beam offset for targeting on the retro-reflective target with the measuring beam in a misaligned targeting state, and […] measure the distance in the misaligned targeting state.
Hinderling teaches: the detector is shaded by at least one component of the optical unit ([0090] “there exists a central shading or a circular central zone having a diameter D(13) around the optical axis OA where the reception light 13 is absent or is weaker than in the ring-shaped outer region of the radiation beam”; due to the coaxial arrangement in Fig. 3a, there is a shadow on the detector, shown in Fig. 8, in the top right portion), and a targeting state indicator that outputs information indicative of a targeting state of the emitted measuring beam (Fig. 8, segmented APD 8S; [0162] based on the segmentation of the APD, “it is possible to measure the size and the positioning of the light spot”) and outputs information representing whether the measuring beam is reflected with or without beam offset (Fig. 8, the top right portion shows a beam with no offset, and the bottom right portion shows a beam with offset; [0154-0158] describe how the signal strength on each of the segments differs based on the alignment of the incident beam, as well as the distance of the object, due to the shading along the central axis).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to replace the measuring light receiver disclosed by Hinderling2 with the segmented detector taught by Hinderling. One of ordinary skill would be motivated to make this replacement because the signal to noise ratio can be improved even if the central portion of the detector is shaded by optical components since there are detector segments positioned alongside the central portion of the detector (Hinderling, [0034]). Furthermore, with the segmented detector, "it is possible to measure the size and positioning of the light spot with this APD segmentation" (Hinderling, [0162]).
However, this combined instrument of Hinderling2 in view of Hinderling, still does not expressly teach the intentional targeting of the measurement beam with beam offset and measuring the distance in the misaligned targeting state.
Hofmann teaches the use of computer readable information outputted by the targeting state indicator indicative of a misaligned targeting state representing that the measuring beam is retroreflected by the retroreflective target with beam offset ([0039] explains that the output signal provides information about the quantity of light received and that if the light receiver consisted of a plurality of diodes, that spatial resolution can be achieved as well. It is understood that the combined instrument taught by Hinderling2 and Hinderling contains the segmented APD taught by Hinderling, and thus is able to provide spatial resolution also. Additionally, the output signal is computer readable since electrical signals are computer readable), for targeting on the retro-reflective target with the measuring beam in a misaligned targeting state ([0048] “The manipulation unit can use different technologies for a well-defined misalignment”; [0041] intentionally misaligning the returning beam such that it is incident on a different portion of the light receiver; Fig. 5, liquid lens 22 is used to deflect the beam such that it is off-axis; [0042] “the manipulation unit can act on the light transmitter”), and measuring the distance in the misaligned targeting state ([0040] the sensor measures distance; [0041-0043] describe that the purposeful misalignment is used to ensure the signal intensity is in a range where the signal to noise ratio is acceptable, and that “the manipulation unit can act on the light transmitter”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the instrument taught by Hinderling2 in view of Hinderling, such that the measuring beam falls on the detector in a configuration where the signal intensity falls within a range where the signal is not too strong or too weak, as taught by Hofmann. This teaching could be incorporated into the current instrument taught by Hinderling2, in view of Hinderling, such that the liquid lens, which already exists in the instrument disclosed by Hinderling2 (Fig. 2a, liquid lens 30 in the path of the measurement beam), modifies the transmitted beam path such that a desired portion of the light spot strikes the receiver, as taught by Hofmann in paragraph [0042]. Keeping the intensity in an ideal range, where the return signal does not oversaturate the detector or fall below the noise threshold, is beneficial because it can maintain good measurement accuracy (Hofmann, [0017]).
Regarding Claim 2: Hinderling2, in view of Hinderling and Hofmann, teaches a surveying instrument according to claim 1. In this current combination, Hofmann further teaches wherein the surveying instrument is configured to, when performing the distance measurement, target on the retro-reflective target in a way that the measuring beam is shifted ([0042] “the manipulation unit can act on the light transmitter”; Fig. 5, the measurement beam is shifted down in the leftmost example, and shifted up in the rightmost example). This current combination does not explicitly require that the measuring beam is preferably not shaded, but at most is partly shaded, when impinging on the detector.
However, Hinderling further teaches that the measuring beam is at most partly shaded, preferably not shaded at all, when impinging on a detector surface of the detector (0090] “there exists a central shading or a circular central zone having a diameter 0(13) around the optical axis OA where the reception light 13 is absent or is weaker than in the ring-shaped outer region of the radiation beam. This central shading likewise increases in diameter as the object distance d(20) becomes shorter”; and [0154] Regarding the “lower partial figure” of Fig. 8: “Such a situation should be regarded in particular as representative of and advantageous for an axial arrangement of transmitter and receiver”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the instrument taught by Hinderling2, Hinderling, and Hofmann, by having a preferred arrangement, as further taught by Hinderling, such that the shading of the measurement beam is minimized. This would be motivated by the desire to improve signal to noise ratio, especially because in near range measurements, the shading can be so substantial that it even blocks the signal from reaching the detector at all (Hinderling, [0016-0017]).
Regarding Claim 3: Hinderling2, in view of Hinderling and Hofmann, teaches a surveying instrument according to claim 1. Hinderling further teaches: wherein the targeting state indicator comprises: an area detector for generating the indication of the targeting state (Fig. 8, segmented APD 8S), wherein the on-target state is given, if a reflex-spot of the reflected measuring beam impinges on a defined, particularly defined by calibration data, servo-control-point-position of the area detector, and wherein the misaligned targeting state is given, if the reflex spot impinges decentralized with reference to the servo-control-point position ([0162] "At every scanning angle ... it is possible to measure the size and the positioning of the light spot with this APD segmentation"; it is understood that if this APD can measure positioning of the light, it would be able to detect whether the light is centered on the detector as shown in the top right portion of Fig. 8, or if it is off center as shown in the bottom right portion of Fig. 8); or a camera, wherein the camera comprises a photosensitive detector, and wherein the on target state is given, if an image of the retro-reflective target is generated at a defined, particularly defined by calibration data, servocontrol-point-position of the photosensitive detector (Fig. 8, top right portion shows measuring beam centered on the APD), and wherein the misaligned targeting state is given, if the image is generated decentralized with reference to the servo-control-point-position (Fig. 8, the bottom right shows measuring beam off-centered on the APD).
Regarding Claim 4: Hinderling2, in view of Hinderling and Hofmann, teaches a surveying instrument according to claim 1. Hinderling2 further discloses: wherein the measuring beam comprises two partial measuring beams, wherein a first partial measuring beam is suitable to be used for generating indication of a targeting state on the targeting state indicator and a second partial measuring beam is suitable to be used for performing the distance measurement (Fig. 2a, ATR light source 12 and light source 55, which generate the beam suitable for indicating targeting state and for performing distance measurement respectively).
Regarding Claim 5: Hinderling2, in view of Hinderling and Hofmann, teaches a surveying instrument according to claim 1. Hinderling2 further discloses: wherein the surveying instrument (Fig. 1, surveying device 11) comprises:
a base (Fig. 1, base 1),
a support, which is rotatably mounted on the base so it is rotatable about a first axis of rotation (Fig. 1 and [0088] “A device body 2 of the device 11 is attached to the base 1, having a vertical goniometer rotatable around a standing axis 7”),
a carrier, which is rotatably mounted on the support so it is rotatable about a second axis of rotation (Fig. 1 and [0088] “an operating unit 4 and is connected to the targeting unit 3 by a tilt axis goniometer, which is rotatable about the tilt axis 8”),
an angle determining unit for acquiring first angle data with respect to a rotation of the support around the first angle of rotation ([0089] “the device 11 can survey a targeted target object in polar coordinates using the two angle meters and the distance meter”; [0091] and Fig. 1, there are two angle meters for the angles about axes 7 and 8),
an angle determining unit for acquiring second angle data with respect to a rotation of the carrier around the second angle of rotation ([0089] “the device 11 can survey a targeted target object in polar coordinates using the two angle meters and the distance meter”; [0091] and Fig. 1, there are two angle meters for the angles about axes 7 and 8),
wherein the measuring beam is emitted from the carrier (Fig. 1, emitted optical radiation 10z originating from the targeting unit 3). Regarding Claim 6: Hinderling2, in view of Hinderling and Hofmann, teaches a surveying instrument according to claim 5. This current combination of Hinderling2, Hinderling, and Hofmann, does not teach: wherein the misaligned targeting state is generated by: rotation of the carrier around at least the first axis of rotation or the second axis of rotation, or pivoting a beam deflection element into the optical path of the measuring beam, particularly where the beam deflection element is comprised in the optical unit, wherein the effect of beam deflection is particularly obtained by displacement and or tipping of the beam deflection element and/or electrooptical control of the optical refractive properties of the beam deflection element.
However, Hofmann further teaches wherein the misaligned targeting state is generated by: rotation of the carrier around at least the first axis of rotation or the second axis of rotation ([0047] lateral displacement of the light spot can be achieved by laterally displacing the system itself or by tilting the optical system itself).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the instrument taught by Hinderling2, Hinderling, and Hofmann, such that the misalignment can also be caused by tilting the system itself, as taught by Hofmann. This would simply be a variation in design, and “Known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in either the same field or a different one based on design incentives or other market forces if the variations are predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art” (MPEP 2141.III KSR Rationale F).
Regarding Claim 7: Hinderling2, in view of Hinderling and Hofmann, teaches a surveying instrument according to claim 1. Hinderling2 further discloses: wherein a diffractive optical element is inserted into the optical beam path of the measuring beam, the diffractive optical element in particular being a moving diffuser, an optical wedge, or a close range divergence lens ([0051] “Due to the different deform ability of the liquid lens in multiple directions, both a setting of the beam divergence or beam convergence and also a direction change of the emitted optical radiation can be achieved ... upon observation of the propagation direction of the emitted beam bundle, an optical wedge effect which is settable in two dimensions is more or less achieved”).
Regarding Claim 8: Hinderling2, in view of Hinderling and Hofmann, teaches a surveying instrument according to claim 1. Hofmann further discloses wherein the difference between the on target state and the misaligned state is adjusted depending on a distance to the retro-reflective target, or based on a signal strength of the retroreflected measuring beam, the signal strength being dependent on the indicated targeting state, detected by the detector ([0043-0044] the intensity of the light spot striking the light receiver is used to determine whether the signal is either too strong or too weak. Based on the signal strength, the misalignment is controlled by the manipulation unit).
Regarding Claim 9: Hinderling2 discloses distance measurement method for the determination of a distance between a surveying instrument and a retroreflective target ([0100] “a method for surveying a target object 40 can thus be carried out using an optical surveying device”), with the surveying instrument having:
a radiation source (Fig. 2a, light source 55);
an optical unit, defining a targeting axis (Figs. 1 and 2, targeting unit 3 and target axis 9);
a detector which is suitable for distance measurements, wherein the detector is configured to detect at least part of a measuring beam retro-reflected by the retroreflective target (Fig. 2a, light receiver 56 and retroreflector 40)
wherein the detector is shaded ([0167] “in the case of short measuring distances, avoidance of near field shading can be caused”; Fig 13a)
a targeting state indicator comprising a computer operatively coupled with the detector or a second detector (Fig. 2a, ATR light source 12 with camera 13 and liquid lens 30; [0111] the image of the observation is displayed on a monitor or display screen; [0120] the camera is a CMOS sensor, which converts optical signals to electrical signals. Displaying an image from a CMOS sensor on a display screen would lead a person of ordinary skill in the art to reasonably conclude that the camera must be operatively coupled with the computer), wherein the targeting state indicator is configured for indicating a targeting state with respect to the retroreflective target ([0111] the image of the observation is displayed on a monitor or display screen. An image of the targeting state indicates what the targeting state is), wherein an on target state is given in which the targeting state indicator generates defined computer readable output, particularly defined by calibration data, representing that no misalignment with respect to the retro-reflective target occurs ([0048] “The beam alignment can be used to form static target line modifications, for example, for calibration purposes i.e., for example, for a self-aligning surveying device. An automatic target line stabilization is thus performed in a manner of speaking”; [0111] the image of the observation is displayed on a monitor or display screen; [0120] the camera is a CMOS sensor, which converts optical signals to electrical signals),
the method comprising:
targeting on the retroreflective target and detecting a targeting state with the targeting state indicator ([0096] “The surveying device 11 can have an automatic target detection”);
generating a measuring beam in the radiation source (Fig. 2a, light source 55 with emitted optical radiation 10z);
emitting and receiving at least part of the measuring beam through the optical unit, wherein the emitted measuring beam is emitted towards the at least one retro-reflective target (Fig. 2a, emitting and receiving beams 10z and 10y respectively through objective 6, retroreflector target 40);
receiving at least part of the retroreflected measuring beam and detecting it with the detector, thereby measuring the distance between the surveying instrument and the retroreflective target ([0119] “The received light signal is therefore conditioned as an electrical signal in block and a distance from the device 11 to the target object 40 is determined by the distance measuring unit 59”).
Hinderling2 does not expressly disclose: the detector is shaded by at least one component of the optical unit, […] the targeting on the retroreflective target is done, such that a misaligned targeting state is indicated by the targeting state indicator, in which misaligned targeting state the targeting state indicator generates defined computer readable output representing that the measuring beam is retroreflected by the retroreflective target, such that a misalignment with respect to the retroreflective target occurs and the step of detecting with the detector the retroreflected measuring beam and measuring the distance is done in the misaligned targeting state.
Hinderling teaches: the detector is shaded by at least one component of the optical unit ([0090] “there exists a central shading or a circular central zone having a diameter D(13) around the optical axis OA where the reception light 13 is absent or is weaker than in the ring-shaped outer region of the radiation beam”; due to the coaxial arrangement in Fig. 3a, there is a shadow on the detector, shown in Fig. 8, in the top right portion), and a targeting state indicator that outputs information indicative of a targeting state of the emitted measuring beam (Fig. 8, segmented APD 8S; [0162] based on the segmentation of the APD, “it is possible to measure the size and the positioning of the light spot”) and outputs information representing whether the measuring beam is reflected with or without beam offset (Fig. 8, the top right portion shows a beam with no offset, and the bottom right portion shows a beam with offset; [0154-0158] describe how the signal strength on each of the segments differs based on the alignment of the incident beam, as well as the distance of the object, due to the shading along the central axis).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to replace the measuring light receiver disclosed by Hinderling2 with the segmented detector taught by Hinderling. One of ordinary skill would be motivated to make this replacement because the signal to noise ratio can be improved even if the central portion of the detector is shaded by optical components since there are detector segments positioned alongside the central portion of the detector (Hinderling, [0034]). Furthermore, with the segmented detector, "it is possible to measure the size and positioning of the light spot with this APD segmentation" (Hinderling, [0162]).
However, this combined instrument of Hinderling2 in view of Hinderling, still does not expressly teach the intentional targeting of the measurement beam with beam offset and measuring the distance in the misaligned targeting state.
Hofmann teaches the targeting on the retroreflective target is done, such that a misaligned targeting state is indicated by the targeting state indicator ([0039] explains that the output signal provides information about the quantity of light received and that if the light receiver consisted of a plurality of diodes, that spatial resolution can be achieved as well. It is understood that the combined instrument taught by Hinderling2 and Hinderling contains the segmented APD taught by Hinderling, and thus is able to provide spatial resolution also), in which misaligned targeting state the targeting state indicator generates defined computer readable output representing that the measuring beam is retroreflected by the retroreflective target such that a misalignment with respect to the retroreflective target occurs ([0048] “The manipulation unit can use different technologies for a well-defined misalignment”; [0041] intentionally misaligning the returning beam such that it is incident on a different portion of the light receiver; Fig. 5, liquid lens 22 is used to deflect the beam such that it is off-axis; [0042] “the manipulation unit can act on the light transmitter”; [0039] image sensor is a CMOS image sensor, which converts optical to electrical signals. Electrical signals are computer readable), and the step of detecting with the detector the retroreflected measuring beam and measuring the distance is done in the misaligned targeting state ([0040] the sensor measures distance; [0041-0043] describe that the purposeful misalignment is used to ensure the signal intensity is in a range where the signal to noise ratio is acceptable, and that “the manipulation unit can act on the light transmitter”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the instrument taught by Hinderling2 in view of Hinderling, such that the measuring beam falls on the detector in a configuration where the signal intensity falls within a range where the signal is not too strong or too weak, as taught by Hofmann. This teaching could be incorporated into the current instrument taught by Hinderling2, in view of Hinderling, such that the liquid lens, which already exists in the instrument disclosed by Hinderling2 (Fig. 2a, liquid lens 30 in the path of the measurement beam), modifies the transmitted beam path such that a desired portion of the light spot strikes the receiver, as taught by Hofmann in paragraph [0042]. Keeping the intensity in an ideal range, where the return signal does not oversaturate the detector or fall below the noise threshold, is beneficial because it can maintain good measurement accuracy (Hofmann, [0017]).
Regarding Claim 10: Hinderling2, in view of Hinderling and Hofmann, teaches performing a distance measurement according to claim 9. Hinderling2 further discloses targeting on the retro-reflective target with the measuring beam, such that an on-target state is indicated by the targeting state indicator ([0048] “The beam alignment can be used to form static target line modifications, for example, for calibration purposes i.e., for example, for a self-aligning surveying device. An automatic target line stabilization is thus performed”); determining the targeting direction based on the indicated on-target state ([0118] “As described, deviations can occur in this case, which can be compensated for according to the invention in the form of a target line modification using the liquid lens 30. The measuring light or at least a part thereof is now reflected from the target object 40”).
Regarding Claim 11: Hinderling2, in view of Hinderling and Hofmann, teaches method according to claim 9. The current combination of Hinderling2, Hinderling, and Hofmann does not teach: wherein the measuring beam is deflected with respect to the targeting axis by pivoting a beam deflection element into the optical path of the measurement beam.
However, Hinderling further teaches: wherein the measuring beam is deflected with respect to the targeting axis by pivoting a beam deflection element into the optical path of the measurement beam (Fig 7b, rotary mirror 22).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify the device taught by Hinderling2, Hinderling, and Hofmann to include a rotary mirror in the path of the optical measurement beam as further taught by Hinderling. Doing so is beneficial because it is placed such that it is at the intersection point of the two rotational axis and it can be used for scanning and steering the beam towards the target (Hinderling, [0007]).
Regarding Claim 12: Hinderling2, in view of Hinderling and Hofmann, teaches method according to claim 9. Hinderling2 further discloses: the surveying instrument further comprises:
a base (Fig. 1, base 1);
a support, which is rotatably mounted on the base so it is rotatable about a first axis of rotation (Fig. 1 and [0088] “A device body 2 of the device 11 is attached to the base 1, having a vertical goniometer rotatable around a standing axis 7”),
a carrier, which is rotatably mounted on the support so it is rotatable about a second axis of rotation (Fig. 1 and [0088] “an operating unit 4 and is connected to the targeting unit 3 by a tilt axis goniometer, which is rotatable about the tilt axis 8”),
an angle determining unit for acquiring first angle data with respect to a rotation of the support around the first angle of rotation ([0089] “the device 11 can survey a targeted target object in polar coordinates using the two angle meters and the distance meter”; [0091] and Fig. 1, there are two angle meters for the angles about axes 7 and 8),
an angle determining unit for acquiring second angle data with respect to a rotation of the carrier around the second angle of rotation ([0089] “the device 11 can survey a targeted target object in polar coordinates using the two angle meters and the distance meter”; [0091] and Fig. 1, there are two angle meters for the angles about axes 7 and 8),
wherein the measuring beam is emitted from the carrier (Fig. 1, emitted optical radiation 10z originating from the targeting unit 3).
However, this current combination of Hinderling2, Hinderling, and Hofmann, does not expressly teach that the misaligned state is generated by a rotation of the carrier.
However, Hofmann teaches: the carrier is rotated around at least the first axis of rotation or the second axis of rotation, thereby steering the measuring beam in such a way that the misaligned state is generated ([0047] lateral displacement of the light spot can be achieved by laterally displacing the system itself or by tilting the optical system itself).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the instrument taught by Hinderling2, Hinderling, and Hofmann, such that the misalignment can also be caused by tilting the system itself, as taught by Hofmann. This would simply be a variation in design, and “Known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in either the same field or a different one based on design incentives or other market forces if the variations are predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art” (MPEP 2141.III KSR Rationale F).
Regarding Claim 15: Hinderling2, in view of Hinderling and Hofmann, teaches a surveying instrument according to claim 1. Hinderling2 further discloses: a non-transitory machine-readable media configured to store a computer program product with a program code ([0109] “a computer
program product having program code which is stored on a machine-readable carrier, or computer data
signal, embodied by an electromagnetic wave, for carrying out the method described here”).
Regarding Claim 16: Hinderling2, in view of Hinderling and Hofmann, teaches a surveying instrument according to claim 1. Hinderling2 further discloses: wherein the surveying instrument is embodied as a Theodolite, a Total Station, a Laser Tracker, or a Building Information Modelling machine ([0170] “a tachymeter or a total station is shown in FIG. 14a, a laser scanner is shown in FIG. 14b, and a laser tracker is shown in FIG. 14c”).
Regarding Claim 17: Hinderling2, in view of Hinderling and Hofmann, teaches a surveying instrument according to claim 6. The current combination of Hinderling2, Hinderling, and Hofmann, does not teach: wherein the at least one beam deflection element is a mirror, a prism, a polygon, a double optical wedge, a refractive element, a movable optical fiber or a MOEMS-element.
However, Hinderling further teaches: wherein the at least one beam deflection element is a mirror (Fig 7b, rotary mirror 22).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify the device disclosed by Hinderling2, Hinderling, and Hofmann, to include a rotary mirror in the path of the optical measurement beam as taught by Hinderling. Doing so is beneficial because it is placed such that it is at the intersection point of the two rotational axis and it can be used for scanning and steering the beam towards the target (Hinderling, [0007]).
Regarding Claim 18: Hinderling2, in view of Hinderling and Hofmann, teaches a method according to claim 9. Hinderling2 further discloses: wherein the surveying instrument is embodied as a Theodolite, a Total Station, a Laser Tracker, or a Building Information Modelling machine ([0170] “a tachymeter or a total station is shown in FIG. 14a, a laser scanner is shown in FIG. 14b, and a laser tracker is shown in FIG. 14c”).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hinderling2 in view of Hinderling, further in view of Hofmann, further in view of Bernhard (US 20050141105 A1). Hinderling2, in view of Hinderling and Hofmann, teaches the method according to claim 9. However, they do not expressly teach: wherein a diffractive optical element is inserted into the optical beam path of the measuring beam. the diffractive optical element in particular being a moving diffuser, an optical wedge, or a close-range divergence lens such that the measuring beam is homogenized before impinging on the retro-reflector or the detector surface of the detector.
Bernhard teaches this limitation in Fig. 9 and in paragraph [0070]: “he one-piece objective 10g has a first segment 6, with which a first pencil 4 of rays for illuminating an object not shown is coordinated, comprising a slightly matt optical surface 24” and “The first pencil 4 of rays is scattered with refraction by the slightly matt optical surface 24 of the first segment 6 on the object side, with the result that the object is illuminated by diffuse light of uniform brightness.”
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify the device disclosed by Hinderling2, Hinderling, and Hofmann, by incorporating the one piece objective taught by Bernhard and placing it in the beam path of the measurement beam before it impinges on the detector. “A device having integrated coaxial illumination and a very compact design can be easily produced in this manner,” and this would be beneficial because “Optical crosstalk of rays 9 of the first pencil 4 scattered with refraction by the optical surface 11 and scattered with reflection by the matt surface 24 with the second pencil 5 of rays can thus be reduced to a large extent on the imaging detector 25” (Bernhard, [0071]).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hinderling2 in view of Hinderling, further in view of Hofmann, further in view of Matsumoto (US 20190004154 A1). Hinderling2, in view of Hinderling and Hofmann, teaches the method according to claim 9. However, they do not expressly teach: wherein the level of misalignment of the measuring beam is automatically adjusted depending on the distance to the retroreflective target, or based on an angle dependent signal strength of the retroreflected measuring beam detected by the detector.
Matsumoto teaches this limitation in [0087]: “the deflection motors 37a, 37b are controlled on the basis of detection signals from the angle measuring sensors 65 (the encoders 60a, 60b) to control rotation angles, rotation speeds, and the like of the prism deflection plates 36a, 36b. However, an encoder may be attached to each of the deflection motors 37a, 37b. On the basis of a detection signal from the encoder, a rotation angle of the corresponding prism deflection plates 36a, 36b may be detected, and furthermore, a rotation speed and the like may be controlled.”
It would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the surveying instrument taught by Hinderling2, Hinderling, and Hofmann, by incorporating the deflection motors and angle measuring sensors taught by Matsumoto such that the beam steering of the surveying instrument is controlled by these deflection motors and the steering is controlled based on a detection signal that is angle dependent. Doing so would be beneficial because the “separate control of deflection motors” would enable “the distance measuring optical axis 40 to be deflected in a freely selected direction at a freely-selected speed” (Matsumoto, [0088]).
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 ISABELLE LIN BOEGHOLM whose telephone number is (571)270-0570. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7:30am-5pm, Fridays 8am-12pm.
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, Yuqing Xiao can be reached at (571) 270-3603. 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.
/ISABELLE LIN BOEGHOLM/Examiner, Art Unit 3645
/YUQING XIAO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3645