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 .
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Extracting means in claim 1 (image processor 24 in Fig. 1, pgs. 25-26)
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
Distance measuring light projecting module in claims 1-20 (shown as 11 in Fig. 1, pgs. 9-10, including light emitter 32)
Light receiving module in claims 1-20 (shown as 12 in Fig. 1, pgs. 11-12, including photodetector 42)
Distance measurement arithmetic module in claims 1-20 (shown as 15 in Fig. 1, pgs. 8-9, can be a microprocessor, etc.)
Narrow-angle image pickup module in claims 1-20 (71 in Fig. 1, pgs. 16-17, with narrow-angle image pickup element 51 as a CCD or CMOS),
Arithmetic control module in claims 1-20 (shown as 16 in Fig. 1, pgs. 8-9, can be a microprocessor, etc.)
Detecting light projecting module in claims 2, 3, 7-10, 12-15, and 18-19 (13 in Fig. 1, pg. 13, including detecting light source 45)
Wide-angle image pickup module in claims 4, 7-8, 11-13, 16, 18, and 20 (14 in Fig. 1, pgs. 22-23, shown as a CCD or CMOS sensor)
Attitude detector in claims 5, 9-13, 17, and 19-20 (18 in Fig. 1, tilt detector such as a tilt sensor)
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 3, 8, 10, 13, 15, 18, and 19 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.
Claim 3 recites the limitation “said end face” in ln. 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. In claim 1, “incidence/projection end faces” are introduced. Claims 8, 10, 13, 15, 18, and 19 are similarly rejected due to their dependence on claim 3.
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 1-5 and 7-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ohtomo US 20190154805 A1 in view of Dussan US 20190025407 A1.
Regarding claim 1, Ohtomo teaches a surveying instrument comprising:
a distance measuring light projecting module configured to project a distance measuring light along a distance measuring optical axis (21 in Fig. 3 with axis 41, [0046]),
a light receiving module configured to receive a reflected distance measuring light (22 in Fig. 3, [0048]),
a distance measurement arithmetic module configured to measure a distance to an object and the reflection intensity of said reflected distance measuring light based on a transmission signal of said distance measuring light and a light reception signal of said reflected distance measuring light (25 in Fig. 3, [0051]),
a narrow-angle image pickup module configured to have a narrow-angle image pickup optical axis partially shared with said distance measuring optical axis and acquire an image with said distance measuring optical axis as a center ([0060]; not shown, but discussed as branched portions of the receiving optical axis; tracking module 23 can be used as the narrow-angle image pickup module, [0108]),
an optical axis deflector configured to have a wavelength dispersion compensation prism arranged in a shared portion of said distance measuring optical axis and said narrow-angle image pickup optical axis and a rotating shaft vertical or substantially vertical with respect to incidence/projection end faces of said wavelength dispersion compensation prism and deflect said distance measuring optical axis by the rotation of said wavelength dispersion compensation prism, (disk prisms 63 and 64 with triangular prisms 65a and 66a, [0067-69]; the triangular prisms will inherently compensate for wavelength dispersion; examiner notes that details of wavelength dispersion compensation prisms are not claimed),
and an arithmetic control module configured to control said optical axis deflector and said distance measurement arithmetic module and calculate a deflecting direction of said optical axis deflector (26 in Fig. 3, [0038-43, 58, 79-80, 88])
Ohtomo does not explicitly teach an extracting means configured to extract an end face reflection image of said wavelength dispersion compensation prism from said image, and the arithmetic control module calculates a deflecting direction based on said end face reflection extracted by said extracting means.
Dussan teaches using reflections off a face of an optical element to monitor angle of an optical element and extracting this information (Fig. 6, [0081-86])
Additionally, Ohtomo does teach extracting module in the form of image processing module 35 ([0035, 97]) and using combinations of narrow and wide angle images to extract distance and angles (see at least [0108-112])
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 Ohtomo to include an extracting means configured to extract an end face reflection image of said wavelength dispersion compensation prism from said image, and the arithmetic control module calculates a deflecting direction based on said end face reflection extracted by said extracting means similar to Dussan with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of allowing the instrument to track the angle light is emitted.
Regarding claim 2, Ohtomo as modified above teaches the surveying instrument according to claim 1, further comprising
a detecting light projecting module configured to project a detecting light for detecting said object along a detecting light optical axis (Tracking section 23 and tracking light source 55, Fig. 3; [0052-53]),
wherein said detecting light optical axis is partially shared with said distance measuring optical axis and said narrow-angle image pickup optical axis (shares same projection/detection axis in Fig. 3),
said wavelength dispersion compensation prism is arranged in a shared portion of the respective axes (37 is in the shared portion of the axes in Fig. 3), and
Ohtomo does not explicitly teach said extracting means is configured to extract at least one of said distance measuring light and said detecting light reflected on an end face of said wavelength dispersion compensation prism from said image.
Dussan teaches using reflections off a face of an optical element to monitor angle of an optical element and extracting this information (Fig. 6, [0081-86])
Additionally, Ohtomo does teach extracting module in the form of image processing module 35 ([0035, 97]) and using combinations of narrow and wide angle images to extract distance and angles (see at least [0108-112])
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 Ohtomo the extracting means is configured to extract at least one of said distance measuring light and said detecting light reflected on an end face of said wavelength dispersion compensation prism from said image similar to Dussan with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of allowing the instrument to track the angle light is emitted.
Regarding claim 3, Ohtomo as modified above teaches the surveying instrument according to claim 2, wherein at least one of said distance measuring light and said detecting light is configured to enter said end face of said wavelength dispersion compensation prism at a tilt with respect to said rotating shaft (47 and 48 enter 37 with a tilt to the rotation in Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 4, Ohtomo as modified above teaches the surveying instrument according to claim 1, further comprising a wide-angle image pickup module configured to have an angle of view substantially equal to a maximum deflection range of said optical axis deflector (24 in Fig. 3, [0092]).
Regarding claim 5, Ohtomo as modified above teaches the surveying instrument according to claim 1, further comprising an attitude detector configured to detect a tilt with respect to the horizontality (28 in Fig. 3, [0045, 102, 106, 112]), wherein said arithmetic control module is configured to correct a measurement result based on a detection result of said attitude detector ([0045, 102, 106, 112]).
Regarding claims 7-8, see rejection to claim 4.
Regarding claims 9-13, see rejection to claim 5.
Claims 6 and 14-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ohtomo US 20190154805 A1 in view of Dussan US 20190025407 A1 and further in view of Schindler US 20230324528 A1.
Regarding claim 6, Ohtomo as modified above teaches the surveying instrument according to claim 1,
Ohtomo does not explicitly teach wherein said arithmetic control module is configured to enable identifying an object reflection image reflected on said object and said end face reflection image based on the reflection intensity.
Schindler teaches comparing intensity of object reflection to reference reflections to identify an object ([0027-38])
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 Ohtomo such that said arithmetic control module is configured to enable identifying an object reflection image reflected on said object and said end face reflection image based on the reflection intensity similar to Schindler with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of allowing the instrument to distinguish between actual objects and reference reflections.
Regarding claims 14-20, see rejection to claim 6
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Yang Us 20150147019 A1 teaches a chromatic dispersion correcting element such as a prism ([0024])
Meng US 20150077869 A1 teaches wavelength dispersion compensation prism
Shaked et al. (“The Prism pair: Simple Dispersion Compensation and Spectral Shaping of Ultrashort Pulses”, 2016 International Journal of Experimental Spectroscopic Techniques ) teaches Pairs of triangular prisms can help with dispersion compensation
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSEPH C FRITCHMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-5533. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00 am - 5:00 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, 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.
/J.C.F./Examiner, Art Unit 3645
/ISAM A ALSOMIRI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3645