(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 .
Priority
The following claimed benefit is acknowledged: The instant application, filed on 21 January 2022, claims foreign priority to JP Application No. 2021-017936, filed on 08 February 2021.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statement (lDS) submitted on 01/21/2022 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97 and has been considered.
Claim Objections
Claims 2-3 and 7-8 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 2, “the three-dimensional position” should read
--the three-dimensional position of the measurement point-- to clarify antecedence to “a three-dimensional position of the measurement point” of claim 1, lines 18-19, rather than “a three-dimensional position of the emission port” of claim 1, lines 15-16.
Regarding claim 3, “the three-dimensional position” should read
--the three-dimensional position of the measurement point-- to clarify antecedence to “a three-dimensional position of the measurement point” of claim 1, lines 18-19, rather than “a three-dimensional position of the emission port” of claim 1, lines 15-16.
Further regarding claim 3, line 11, “imaged images” should read --the imaged images--.
Regarding claim 7, line 11, “imaged images” should read --the imaged images--.
Regarding claim 8, lines 11-12, “the surveying instrument” should read --a surveying instrument--.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-8 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.
Regarding claim 1, line 8 recites “a communication section.” Claim 1, line 11 again recites “a communication section.” It is unclear whether the communication section of line 11 refers to the same communication section introduced in line 8, or to introduce a separate, distinct communication section.
Further regarding claim 1, lines 13-14 recite “the information.” It is unclear whether the limitation refers to the “position information” introduced in line 12, the “posture information” introduced line 12, both the posture and position information, or a new class of information.
Regarding claim 3, lines 11-12 recite “determines an object point… as the measurement point.” Claim 3, lines 7-8 recite “determines an estimated position offset… as the measurement point.” It is unclear whether the measurement point is the determined object or the estimated position offset.
Regarding claim 7, lines 14-15 recite “emitting distance-measuring light… and measuring a three-dimensional position of the measurement point.” Claim 7, lines 6-7 recite “emitting distance-measuring light… and measuring a three-dimensional position of the emission port.” It is unclear whether the same distance-measuring light is used for measuring both the emission port and measurement point, or whether distinct distance-measuring light is emitted for measuring the emission port and measurement point.
Regarding claim 8, line 11 recites “the information.” It is unclear whether the limitation refers to the “position information” introduced in line 10, the “posture information” introduced in line 10, both the posture and position information, or a new class of information.
Claims 2-6 are rejected by virtue of dependency.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishita (US20180003820A1) in view of Nashita2 (US20190086206A1).
Regarding claim 8, Nashita teaches a measuring marker (Figs. 9-10, measuring module 4) comprising:
a stick body (Fig. 9, illustrated stick frame of module 4);
a [1: prism retroreflector] (Fig. 9, 35; ¶¶ 52, 59 and 91, provides targeting positional information);
a posture sensor (Fig. 9, 36; ¶ 86, provides directional vector/yaw);
a laser emitting section configured to emit laser light (Fig. 9, scanner 62) [2: …] in an axial direction of the stick body (Fig. 9, axis 65);
an emission port for the laser light (Fig. 9, light output port 64a; ¶ 83):
a communication section (Fig. 9, communication section 31; ¶ 76);
an arithmetic control section (Fig. 9, arithmetic control section 32; ¶ 76); and
a storage section (Fig. 9, storage section 33; ¶ 76), wherein
in the storage section, positional relationships of the [1: prism retroreflector] (Fig. 9, d3+d2, distance from element 35 to output port 64a; ¶¶ 47, 83-84, 88, positional relationship known in advance) and the posture sensor with the emission port are stored (Fig. 9, d2, distance from element 36 to output port 64a; ¶¶ 47, 83-84, 88, positional relationship known in advance), and
the arithmetic control section corrects position information from the [1: prism retroreflector] and posture information from the posture sensor by using the positional relationships to calculate position information and posture information of the emission port (¶¶ 86-89, use the position and pose information, with known positional relationship d2/d3, to compute emission port position 145), and transmits the information from the communication section to the surveying instrument (Fig. 10, dual way communication between element 31 and element 22; ¶ 47).
The referenced embodiment of Nashita does not expressly teach:
“a position sensor”;
[a laser emitting section configured to emit laser light] “of visible light”;
However, Nashita in a separate embodiment teaches (2) in ¶ 64, specifically, the use of visible laser light. 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 laser emitting section of Nashita such that the emitted light was visible light as further raught by Nashita, since known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations in design in either the same field or a different field based on design incentives or other market forces if the variations would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art (KSR Rationale F). The difference is merely the selection of known wavelength spectrum used for laser range finders, and the artisan skilled in surveying instrumentation would have recognized that adopting visible light taught by Nashita would confer the advantages of enabling operator alignment, ease of targeting, increased safety awareness through visible feedback, and greater surface contrast for reliable observation and positioning. This update represents a known design benefit with predictable enhancements and would have been pursued by the skilled artisan.
Nashita, as modified, does not teach (1), rather teaches the use a prism retroreflector 35 to determine position, see ¶ 59. However, Nashita2 teaches a position sensor in lieu of a prism retroreflector (Fig. 3, GPS; ¶ 39). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the prism retroreflector Nashita with the positions sensor of Nashita2, since known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations in design in either the same field or a different field based on design incentives or other market forces if the variations would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art (KSR Rationale F). The difference is merely a known method of determining position, and an artisan skilled in surveying instrumentation would have recognized adopting the position sensor of Narita2 would confer the advantages of freeing the system from line-of-sight prism tracking, enabling a simpler, faster, and more scalable wide-area surveys. This update represents a known design benefit with predictable enhancements and would have been pursued by the skilled artisan.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-7 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action. A statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter are as follows.
Independent claim 1 is directed towards a three-dimensional position measuring system using a combination of a surveying instrument and a measuring marker. In particular, the invention covers a surveying instrument employing a measuring marker having onboard position and posture sensing and an axially positioned visible laser with emission port for emitting laser light (“measuring marker including a position sensor, a posture sensor, a laser emitting section configured to emit laser light of visible light in an axial direction, an emission port for the laser light”), where the measuring marker computes and transmits its emission port position and posture to the surveying instrument (“the measuring marker calculates position information and posture information of the emission port from the position sensor and the posture sensor and transmits the information to the surveying instrument”). The surveying instrument uses the received information to measure the 3D position of the emission port (“measures a three-dimensional position of the emission port by the distance-measuring section and the angle-measuring section”), determine the marker’s axial direction (“grasps the axial direction based on the posture information”), search for a measurement point along the axial direction (“searches for a measurement point in the axial direction by the imaging section”), and measure the 3D position the measurement point (“measures a three-dimensional position of the measurement point by the distance-measuring section and the angle-measuring section”).
Narita and Narita2 each independent teach a surveying instrument employing a measuring marker in Fig. 9 and Fig. 8, respectively. However, both Narita and Narita2 remain silent towards the direct 3D measurement of the measuring marker’s emission port (“the surveying instrument measures a three-dimensional position of the emission port”), and further fail to teach the searching and 3D position measurement of a measurement point along the axial direction of the measuring marker (“searches for a measurement point in the axial direction by the imaging section, and measures a three-dimensional position of the measurement point”) as recited in claim 1.
Independent claim 7 is directed towards a three-dimensional position measuring method employing a surveying instrument and a measuring marker. In particular, the invention covers transmitting, from the measuring marker, the position and pose of its laser light emission port to the surveying instrument (“transmitting position information and posture information of an emission port for laser light to be emitted in an axial direction of the measuring marker to the surveying instrument”), the 3D positional measurement of the emission port from the instrument (“emitting distance-measuring light from the surveying instrument and measuring a three-dimensional position of the emission port”), image sequencing along the marker axis while verifying whether the projected laser trace is present (“imaging a plurality of object points in the axial direction of the measuring marker in order from the emission port side… and analyzing whether an image of the laser light is included in imaged images”), selection of the measurement point based on disappearance boundary of the laser image (“determining an object point right before an object point where the image of the laser light disappears, as a measurement point”), and the 3D measurement of the selected measurement point (“measuring a three-dimensional position of the measurement point”).
Narita and Narita2 each independent teach a method employing a surveying instrument and a measuring marker in Fig. 9 and Fig. 8, respectively. However, both Narita and Narita2 remain silent towards the direct 3D measurement of the measuring marker’s emission port (“emitting distance-measuring light from the surveying instrument and measuring a three-dimensional position of the emission port”), and further fail to teach the searching, selection and 3D position measurement of a measurement point along the axial direction of the measuring marker (“imaging a plurality of object points in the axial direction of the measuring marker in order from the emission port side… determining an object point right before an object point where the image of the laser light disappears, as a measurement point… measuring a three-dimensional position of the measurement point”) as recited in claim 7.
The remaining prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
Eisenreich (US20200348133A1) teaches a surveying instrument and the employment of a measuring marker with position and posture sensors and a visible-light laser that emits along an axial direction. However, Eisenreich does not teach determination of position and posture of the measuring marker’s light emission port, measurement of the emission port’s 3D position using the surveying instrument, nor the searching and measurement along the axial direction for a measurement point, as required by claims 1 and 7.
Ohtomo (US20150116693A1) teaches a total station with prism/non-prism distance measurement, angle measurement, in communication with a measuring marker that is capable of posture sensing. However, Ohtomo does not teach a position sensor and a light emission port of the measuring marker, the measuring of the emission port’s 3D position using the surveying instrument, nor the searching and measurement of a measurement point defined by the axial orientation of the emission port, as required by claims 1 and 7.
Muller (US20220283327A1) teaches a surveying instrument and the employment of a measuring marker with posture sensing and a visible-light laser that emits along an axial direction. However, Muller fails to teach a position sensor on the marker, determination of position and posture of the measuring marker’s light emission port, measurement of the emission port’s 3D position using the surveying instrument, nor the searching and measurement along the axial direction for a measurement point, as required by claims 1 and 7.
Dumoulin (US20150092183A1) teaches a surveying instrument and the employment of a measuring marker with position and posture sensors in Fig. 2. However, Dumoulin does not disclose a light emission port of the measuring marker, the measuring of the emission port’s 3D position using the surveying instrument, nor the searching and measurement of a measurement point defined by the axial orientation of the emission port, as required by claims 1 and 7.
Muller2 (US20210372768A1) teaches a surveying instrument and the employment of a measuring marker in Fig. 1. However, Muller2 does not teach an axial laser emission port of the measuring marker, nor the 3D position measurement of the emission port by the surveying instrument, as required by claims 1 and 7.
In sum, the prior art references of record teach or suggest various aspects of the invention, none, neither alone or in combination, teach or suggest all the claimed limitation as specifically recited in the claim. Therefore, claims 1 and 7 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the 112(b) rejection(s) set forth in this Office action. Claims 2-6 would be allowable by virtue of dependency.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ZHENGQING QI whose telephone number is 571-272-1078. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00 AM - 5:00 PM ET.
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 on 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.
/ZHENGQING QI/Examiner, Art Unit 3645