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 . Claims 1-5 are pending and claim 6 was newly added.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-5 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
The amendments to claim 1 specifying that the optical unit contained in the rotary body emit and receive the scanning light caused this rejection of claim 3 since the rotary body of claim 1 as amended now is tied particularly to vertical rotation unit 114 as disclosed in the instant specification, resulting in claim 3 as written not being supported since it requires the rotary body to be configured to rotate horizontally and the instant specification does not include that particular embodiment. Examiner suggests amending claim 3 to describe the rotary body as rotating vertically and the another rotary body as rotating horizontally in order to address this rejection. Appropriate correction is required.
Please note that the mapping of Nagashima in the substantive rejection of claim 3 will be correct once the 112(a) issues are resolved.
Claim 6 is also rejected under 35 USC 112(b) for depending from a rejected base claim.
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.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1 – 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US PG PUB 20170061605 (hereinafter Nagashima) in view of US PG PUB 20240142630 (hereinafter Friedman).
Regarding Claim 1, Nagashima teaches a laser scanning apparatus (Surveying Instrument 51 as shown in FIG. 1 of Nagashima) comprising:
a rotary body (telescope part 55, see FIG. 1) including an optical unit (distance measuring part 62, which shares the optical system with telescope 59 as shown in FIG. 1) configured to emit laser scanning light ([0026] describes the distance measuring part emitting a measurement light) and receive the laser scanning light reflected from a target object ([0026] also describes the measuring light reflecting off a target and being received by the distance measuring part 62), the rotary body configured to determine an area of laser scanning by rotating the optical unit (horizontal and vertical rotation drivers 64/66 perform a scan by rotating the optical unit); and
a controller (instrument controller 68) configured to control rotation of the rotary body (FIG. 2 shows instrument controller 68 responsible for actuating horizontal and vertical rotation drivers 64/66), but Nagashima fails to explicitly teach the remainder of claim 1.
However, Friedman teaches the rotary body further configured to rotate while the laser scanning is performed ([0032] describes movement of the rotary body during emission of the laser), whereby scanning using laser scanning light is performed at a predetermined interval (annotated FIG. 1 included below shows how scan pattern 15 includes multiple sampling points 16 separated by relative positions 30 and indicated by indicia Ɵ).
the controller further configured to make the rotary body repeatedly rotate multiple times in angular ranges that partially overlap one another (annotated FIG. 1 below illustrates Friedman’s teaching of scanning patterns 15 and 15’ overlapping one another), in order to perform the laser scanning multiple times on areas of the laser scanning that overlap one another (FIG. 1 also illustrates how the scan patterns 15 and 15’ include multiple horizontal sweeps that overlap),
PNG
media_image1.png
779
531
media_image1.png
Greyscale
start positions of the rotation of multiple times being successively shifted by a predetermined amount (shift 31, as shown in annotated FIG. 1 as Ɵ/2), the predetermined amount of shifting (shift 31) corresponding to a distance shorter than the predetermined interval (relative position 30 – interval between sampling points 16, as shown in annotated FIG. 1 as Ɵ is larger than shift 31).
Nagashima and Friedman are both directed to scanning distance measurement devices. A person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would have found it obvious to operate the device taught by Nagashima in accordance with the method taught by Friedman. In particular, instrument controller 68 could be improved by performing the overlapping scan patterns taught by Friedman in order to achieve a higher density of sampling points than with a fixed scanning pattern as described in [0021] of Friedman.
Regarding Claim 2, the combination of Nagashima and Friedman teaches the laser scanning apparatus according to claim 1, wherein, assuming that a number of the repetitions of rotation is “M”, which is a natural number of two or more, and an angular range corresponding to the predetermined interval is Δθ, an angular range corresponding to the predetermined amount of shifting is Δθ/M (Annotated FIG. 1 as shown above, illustrates how when the repetitions of rotation M is 2, which is a natural number of two or more, and the laser scanning is performed at a predetermined interval of Δθ, the predetermined amount of shifting is Δθ/2).
Regarding Claim 3, the combination of Nagashima and Friedman teaches the laser scanning apparatus according to claim 1, further comprising another rotary body (frame part 54, [0025] of Nagashima describes frame part 54 as rotating around a vertical axis, driven by horizontal rotation driver 64) that is configured to rotate on a rotation axis in a direction orthogonal to a rotation axis of the rotary body (telescope part 55 rotates about a horizontal axis orthogonal to the vertical axis about which frame part 54 rotates about),
the rotary body further configured to rotate horizontally (telescope part 55 of Nagashima),
the another rotary body further configured to rotate vertically (frame part 54 of Nagashima, see 112(a) rejection above for mapping explanation), the another rotary body further configured to rotate vertically while pulses of the laser scanning light are emitted in a vertical angle direction, whereby the scanning using the laser scanning light is performed ([0032] describes movement of the rotary body during emission of the laser).
Claims 4-5 are rejected for the same reasons as Claim 1 is rejected.
Regarding Claim 6, the combination of Nagashima and Friedman teaches the laser scanning apparatus according to claim 3, wherein:
the controller is configured to control timing of emission of the pulses of the laser scanning light ([0034] of Friedman discusses the use of a pattern generator that acts as a controller to dictate sampling times that control timing of pulse emissions), and
the controller is configured to shift a timing of the emission of the pulses for an (n+1)-th vertical rotation of the another rotary body from a timing of the emission of the pulses for an n-th vertical rotation of the another rotary body, such that positions of the laser scanning light emitted during the (n+1)-th vertical rotation are shifted in the vertical angle direction relative to positions of the laser scanning light emitted during the n-th vertical rotation (a portion of FIG. 2 of Friedman includes exemplary possibility A, which shows how an (n+1)-th vertical rotation 15’ is shifted down by a distance indicated by 31 from the n-th vertical rotation shown as 15).
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BENJAMIN WIGGER whose telephone number is (571)272-4208. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30am to 7:00pm.
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, Helal Algahaim can be reached at (571)270-5227. 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.
/BENJAMIN DAVID WIGGER/Examiner, Art Unit 3645
/HELAL A ALGAHAIM/SPE , Art Unit 3645