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
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. JP2021-160383, filed on September 30, 2021.
Response to Amendment
The following addresses Applicant’s remarks/amendments 24 February 2026
Claims 1, 2, 3, and 4 were amended; no claims were cancelled; no new claims were added; therefore, claims 1-10 are pending in the current application and will be addressed below.
The rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112 (b) to claims 1-19 have been withdrawn due to the combination of amendments and Applicant remarks.
Response to Argument
Applicant’s arguments filed 24 February 2026 with respect to claims 1-19 have been fully considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to the specific combination of references being used in the current rejection.
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 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kotzur et al (US 10,753,740 B2) in view of Rosengaus et al. (US 2013/0096873 A1) and Samuelson (US 2017/0280114 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Kotzur teaches a surveying system ([Col. 2, ll. 43-45] a surveying instrument and a surveying measurement method) comprising:
a height measuring device ([Col. 3, ll. 22-23) The surveying instrument can also comprise a height measurement appliance) and
a high-low measuring device and measuring a high-low information ([Col. 8, ll. 35-39] Besides the target point aiming and measurement setup of such a total station 1, it is also equipped with a tilt sensor 30… measure the tilt of the total station 1, preferably in direction of the line of sight and perpendicular to the line of sight),
wherein said height measuring device is installed at a floor surface as a reference ([Col. 3, ll. 11-16] The surveying instrument is to be stationed at ground coordinates and in a stationing height above ground… Such stationing can e.g. be established by means of a support for the device like a tripod or the like), and is configured to set a horizontal reference plane and to measure a height of an object with respect to said horizontal reference plane ([Col. 4, ll. 49-60] The target point correction unit can therein be configured to derive and apply the target point correction in a substantially horizontal x-y plane and in a substantially vertical z direction….The control unit can be configured to derive the corrected target point coordinates with additionally correcting the target direction according to the tilt value from the tilt sensor in such a way, that a corrected target direction is referenced to level)
wherein said high-low measuring device comprises
said object ([Col. 13, ll. 33-35] the instrument 1b is used to survey the target point 20, here embodied at a surveying pole Examiner Note: Fig. 5, reproduced below, shows the target point 20 affixed to the surveying pole (object)),
a distance measurement sensor which is provided in a known relationship with said object and measures a distance to a construction surface ([Col. 13, ll. 40-52] the target point coordinates measured by 8b, are applied with a location displacement x,y,z of the instrument center coordinates from 6a to 6b, resulting in corrected target point coordinates 25 referenced to the instrument center coordinates 6a without tilt, as indicated by the virtual corrected measurement 8c. The resulting corrected target point 20c which coordinates are provided by the instrument 1 are those of the real target point 20 with respect to the thereby virtually fixed center point 6a of the instrument. According to the invention, the location displacement x,y,z of the instrument center coordinates are therein derived based on the tilt value 12 and the instruments stationing height 11), and
an arithmetic control module ([Col. 12, ll. 66-67] the target coordinates can be corrected in a post processing software).
PNG
media_image1.png
730
766
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Kotzur is not relied upon as teaching measuring a high-low information of a construction surface with respect to a construction finished surface, wherein said high-low measuring device is installed at a construction floor surface, a projecting device for projecting a high-low information, wherein said arithmetic control module is configured to set a construction finished surface at a predetermined height with respect to said horizontal reference plane and to calculate a high-low information of said construction surface with respect to said construction finished surface based on a distance information of said construction surface measured by said distance measurement sensor, and wherein said projecting device is configured to project said high-low information onto said construction surface.
However, Rosengaus teaches measuring a high-low information of a construction surface with respect to a construction finished surface ([0049] Other measurements (e.g., surface flatness, floor sloping, etc.) can be accomplished),
wherein said high-low measuring device is installed at a construction floor surface ([Abstract] Systems and methods for acquiring information for a construction site are provided. One system includes a base unit position within a construction site by a user),
wherein said arithmetic control module is configured
to set a construction finished surface at a predetermined height with respect to said horizontal reference plane and to calculate a high-low information of said construction surface with respect to said construction finished surface based on a distance information of said construction surface measured by said distance measurement sensor ([0049] the base unit can now measure the position of any object within its accessible space just as it measured the position of a new tag. This enables the measurement functions described further herein to be performed. Other measurements (e.g., surface flatness, floor sloping, etc.) can be accomplished by measuring multiple points and fitting surfaces to them).
Kotzur and Rosengaus are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are both in the same field of construction site measurement and surface analysis. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the surveying system of Kotzur to include the arithmetic for high-low surface information of Rosengaus with a reasonable expectation of success. This modification would have been motivated by the desire to verify that a construction floor surface meets specific design requirements for flatness and slope. By integrating Rosengaus’s teaching of measuring multiple points and fitting surfaces to them to determine surface flatness or floor sloping into Kotzur’s tilt-corrected surveying pole system, the system can automatically calculate and acquire high-low information of a construction surface with respect to a finished surface. A person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that comparing measured Z-coordinates to ap redetermined design height would yield the predictable result of providing accurate feedback on surface deviation relative to a construction reference.
Rosengaus is not relied upon as teaching a projecting device for projecting a high-low information wherein said projecting device is configured to project said high-low information onto said construction surface.
However, Samuelson teaches a projecting device for projecting a high-low information ([Abstract] device may project a building design drawing onto a floor), wherein said projecting device is configured to project said high-low information onto said construction surface ([Abstract] scans the raw space, compares the proposed construction documents with the existing conditions and projects a full-scale accurate image of the plan on a work surface of either gravel, dirt and/or concrete).
Kotzur (as modified by Rosengaus) and Samuelson are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are both in the same field of construction site measurement and information display systems. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the surveying system of Kotzur (as modified by Rosengaus) to include the projecting device of Samuelson with a reasonable expectation of success. This modification would have been motivated by the desire to provide a direct, full-scale visual representation of calculated measurement data on the physical work surface for immediate use by personnel. By integrating Samuelson’s teaching of a projecting device configured to project a building design drawing or accurate image of a plan onto a floor into the Kotzur system, the system can project the high-low information calculated by the arithmetic control module directly onto the construction surface. A person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that overlaying digital deviation data onto the raw physical workspace would yield the predictable result of facilitating highly accurate surface leveling and correction by providing a full-scale visual guide on the surface itself.
Regarding Claim 4, Kotzur teaches said high-low measuring device further comprises a tilt sensor, and said arithmetic control module is configured to correct said high-low information based on a detection result of said tilt sensor ([Col. 5, ll. 25-34] determining a tilt value of the base of the surveying instrument with respect to a direction of gravity or level by a tilt sensor and deriving the target point coordinates in form of target point coordinates of one or more of the target points based on the target direction and target distance by a control unit, deriving the spatial location displacement of a instrument center due to a tilt movement of the surveying instrument with respect to an initial instrument center location at setup).
Claims 2 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kotzur et al (US 10,753,740 B2) in view of Rosengaus et al. (US 2013/0096873 A1) and Samuelson (US 2017/0280114 A1) in further view of Forster et al (US 2022/0326381 A1).
Regarding Claim 2, Kotzur is not relied upon as teaching said height measuring device is adapted to form a horizontal reference plane with a known height, said object is a photodetector for detecting said horizontal reference plane, and said arithmetic control module is configured to calculate a height of a measurement reference position of said distance measurement sensor with respect to said horizontal reference plane based on a detection result of said photodetector and to calculate the high-low information of said construction surface based on a measurement result of said distance measurement sensor and a height of said construction finished surface.
However, Forster teaches said height measuring device is adapted to form a horizontal reference plane with a known height ([0003] One established laser measuring technique and measuring system utilizes a projection of a laser beam by a rotary irradiation (e.g., a laser transmitter) for the purpose of forming a horizontal reference plane or a reference plane tilted with respect to the horizontal reference plane at a predetermined angle and by which it is possible to measure a position by using the transmitted laser beam), said object is a photodetector for detecting said horizontal reference plane ([0003]-[0004] horizontal reference plane or a reference plane tilted with respect to the horizontal reference plane at a predetermined angle and by which it is possible to measure a position by using the transmitted laser beam… independent laser receivers to simultaneously calculate positions… it is typical for only one person to move the laser receiver from point to point), and said arithmetic control module is configured to calculate a height of a measurement reference position of said distance measurement sensor with respect to said horizontal reference plane based on a detection result of said photodetector and to calculate the high-low information of said construction surface based on a measurement result of said distance measurement sensor ([0081] can be used to determine the yaw angle, i.e., the angle between the transmitter 110 and laser receiver 300 along a horizontal plane. Alternatively, the horizontal distance of the dot from a center point can also be used to determine the yaw angle).
Kotzur (as previously modified by Rosengaus and Samuelson) and Forster are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are both in the same field of geodetic surveying and construction site measurement. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the surveying system of Kotzur (as previously modified by Rosengaus and Samuelson) to include the rotary laser transmitter and photodetector receiver of Forster with a reasonable expectation of success. This modification would have been motivated by the desire to establish a known vertical reference height across a wide construction are for simultaneous use by multiple sensors or personnel. By integrating Forster’s teaching of utilizing a projection of a laser beam by a rotary irradiation to form a horizontal reference plane into the Kotzur system, the system can calculate a height of a measurement reference position based on a detection result of a photodetector detecting the reference plane. A person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that using a horizontal reference plane to determine elevation deviations would yield the predictable result of accurate and automated grade checking across the entire construction surface.
Forster is not relied upon as teaching calculating the high-low information of said construction surface based on a height of said construction finished surface.
However, Rosengaus teaches calculating the high-low information of said construction surface based on a height of said construction finished surface ([0049] Other measurements (e.g., surface flatness, floor sloping, etc.) can be accomplished).
Kotzur (as previously modified by Rosengaus, Samuelson, and Forster) and Rosengaus are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are both in the same field of automated construction surface analysis. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the surveying system of Kotzur (as previously modified by Rosengaus, Samuelson, and Forster) to include the specific arithmetic for high-low calculation from Rosengaus with a reasonable expectation of success. This modification would have been motivated by the desire to calculate precise surface deviations relative to a design finished surface using measured distance data. By integrating Rosengaus’s teaching of calculating high-low information of a construction surface based on a measurement result and a construction finished surface into the system, the system can automatically determine the vertical distance between the raw surface and the intended final grade. A person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that using an arithmetic module to fit measured points to a finished surface height would yield the predictable result of providing automated, real-time height deviation data for surface leveling.
Regarding Claim 10, Kotzur teaches said high-low measuring device further comprises a tilt sensor, and said arithmetic control module is configured to correct said high-low information based on a detection result of said tilt sensor ([Col. 5, ll. 25-34] determining a tilt value of the base of the surveying instrument with respect to a direction of gravity or level by a tilt sensor and deriving the target point coordinates in form of target point coordinates of one or more of the target points based on the target direction and target distance by a control unit, deriving the spatial location displacement of a instrument center due to a tilt movement of the surveying instrument with respect to an initial instrument center location at setup).
Claims 3 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kotzur et al (US 10,753,740 B2) in view of Rosengaus et al. (US 2013/0096873 A1) and Samuelson (US 2017/0280114 A1) in further view of Forster et al (US 2022/0326381 A1) and in even further view of Fujimoto (US 2017/0226708 A1).
Regarding Claim 3, Kotzur teaches that said height measuring device is a surveying instrument which is provided at a known height ([Col. 3, ll. 11-12] The surveying instrument is to be stationed at ground coordinates and in a stationing height above ground).
Kotzur is not relied upon as teaching that the height measuring device is configured to communicate measurement results to said high-low measuring device and has a tracking function, said high-low measuring device is configured to receive measurement results from said height measuring device, said object is a prism, and said arithmetic control module is configured to acquire the height information of said prism with respect to said construction finished surface from said high-low measuring device, to calculate a height of said measurement reference position of said distance measurement sensor with respect to said construction finished surface based on said height information of said prism and a known relationship between said prism and said distance measurement sensor, and to calculate the high-low information of said construction surface based on a measurement result of said distance measurement sensor and the height of said measurement reference position of said distance measurement sensor.
However, Forster teaches that the height measuring has a tracking function ([0002] The present invention relates to a positional tracking system and method, and more particularly to optics-based positional tracking systems and methods for locating objects and locations in a construction jobsite).
Kotzur (as modified by Rosengaus and Samuelson) and Forster are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are both in the same field of geodetic surveying and construction jobsite tracking. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the surveying instrument Kotzur (as modified by Rosengaus and Samuelson) to include the optics-based positional tracking function of Forster with a reasonable expectation of success. This modification would have been motivated by the desire to automatically locate and track mobile objects within a construction workspace without manual sighting. By integrating Forster’s teaching of a positional tracking system for locating objects and locations in a construction jobsite into the Kotzur system, the height measuring device (surveying instrument) can automatically follow the movement of the high-low measuring device (surveying pole). A person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that adding an automated tracking function to a stationary surveying instrument would yield the predictable result of continuous hands-free acquisition of spatial coordinates for a mobile target.
Forster is not relied upon as teaching that the height measuring device is configured to communicate measurement results to said high-low measuring device, said high-low measuring device is configured to receive measurement results from said height measuring device, said object is a prism, and said arithmetic control module is configured to acquire the height information of said prism with respect to said construction finished surface from said high-low measuring device, to calculate a height of said measurement reference position of said distance measurement sensor with respect to said construction finished surface based on said height information of said prism and a known relationship between said prism and said distance measurement sensor, and to calculate the high-low information of said construction surface based on a measurement result of said distance measurement sensor and the height of said measurement reference position of said distance measurement sensor.
However, Fujimoto teaches that the height measuring device is configured to communicate measurement results to said high-low measuring device, said high-low measuring device is configured to receive measurement results from said height measuring device, said object is a prism, and said arithmetic control module is configured to acquire the height information of said prism with respect to said construction finished surface from said high-low measuring device, to calculate a height of said measurement reference position of said distance measurement sensor with respect to said construction finished surface based on said height information of said prism and a known relationship between said prism and said distance measurement sensor, ([0117] when the laser surveying instrument 2 starts acquiring the position information (distance, horizontal angle, elevation angle) of the paving machine 3 (the target 7) by measuring the target (prism) 7 of the paving machine 3, the vertical-axis error Δθ related to the elevation angle is excluded with respect to the elevation angle Av thereof, and the position information (distance, horizontal angle) including the elevation angle Av with increased preciseness is transmitted through the communicating part 37 to the paving machine 3. As a result, the paving machine 3 utilizes the transmitted position information to provide the height control of the concrete placement surface with high accuracy).
Kotzur (as previously modified by Rosengaus, Samuelson, and Forster) and Fujimoto are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are both in the same field of automated construction site measurement. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the surveying system of Kotzur (as previously modified by Rosengaus, Samuelson, and Forster) to include the prism-based tracking and wireless communication features of Fujimoto with a reasonable expectation of success. This modification would have been motivated by the desire to enable real-time, remote acquisition of height data by a mobile construction device for high-accuracy surface control. By integrating Fujimoto’s teaching of transmitting position information through a communicating part to a mobile machine in the system, the high-low measuring device can receive measurement results from the height measuring device and acquire the height information of the prism. A person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that establishing a wireless data link between a tracking total station and a prism-equipped mobile rover would yield the predictable result of allowing the mobile device to independently and accurately calculate its vertical position relative to a target construction surface.
Fujimoto is not relied upon as teaching said arithmetic control module is configured to calculate the high-low information of said construction surface based on a measurement result of said distance measurement sensor and the height of said measurement reference position of said distance measurement sensor.
However, Rosengaus teaches that said arithmetic control module is configured to calculate the high-low information of said construction surface based on a measurement result of said distance measurement sensor and the height of said measurement reference position of said distance measurement sensor ([0049] the base unit can now measure the position of any object within its accessible space just as it measured the position of a new tag. This enables the measurement functions described further herein to be performed. Other measurements (e.g., surface flatness, floor sloping, etc.) can be accomplished by measuring multiple points and fitting surfaces to them).
Kotzur (as previously modified by Rosengaus, Samuelson, Forster, and Fujimoto) and Rosengaus are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are both in the same field of construction surface measurement and floor analysis. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the surveying system of Kotzur (as previously modified by Rosengaus, Samuelson, Forster, and Fujimoto) to include the specific arithmetic control logic of Rosengaus with a reasonable expectation of success. This modification would have been motivated by the desire to calculate precise surface deviations relative to a design finished surface using data acquired from a mobile sensor. By integrating Rosengaus’s teaching of calculating the high-low information of a construction surface based on a measurement result and a reference surface height into the system, the high-low measuring device can calculate the height of the distance measurement sensor and determine high-low information based on the sensor’s measurement results. A person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that using an arithmetic module to fit measured points to a predetermined finished surface height would yield the predictable result of providing automated, actionable elevation data for grade correction.
Regarding Claim 11, Kotzur teaches said high-low measuring device further comprises a tilt sensor, and said arithmetic control module is configured to correct said high-low information based on a detection result of said tilt sensor ([Col. 5, ll. 25-34] determining a tilt value of the base of the surveying instrument with respect to a direction of gravity or level by a tilt sensor and deriving the target point coordinates in form of target point coordinates of one or more of the target points based on the target direction and target distance by a control unit, deriving the spatial location displacement of a instrument center due to a tilt movement of the surveying instrument with respect to an initial instrument center location at setup).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kotzur et al (US 10,753,740 B2) in view of Rosengaus et al. (US 2013/0096873 A1) and Samuelson (US 2017/0280114 A1) in further view of Forster et al (US 2022/0326381 A1) and Fujimoto (US 2017/0226708 A1) and in even further view of Pettersson (US 2014/0320603 A1).
Regarding Claim 5, Kotzur teaches said high-low measuring device further comprises a tilt sensor, and said arithmetic control module is configured to correct said high-low information based on a detection result of said tilt sensor ([Col. 5, ll. 25-34] determining a tilt value of the base of the surveying instrument with respect to a direction of gravity or level by a tilt sensor and deriving the target point coordinates in form of target point coordinates of one or more of the target points based on the target direction and target distance by a control unit, deriving the spatial location displacement of a instrument center due to a tilt movement of the surveying instrument with respect to an initial instrument center location at setup).
Kotzur is not relied upon as teaching that a tilt sensor constituted as a handheld type.
However, Pettersson teaches a tilt sensor constituted as a handheld type ({0029] The handheld optical measuring means 1 may have… an electrolytic tilt sensor for measuring inclinations).
Kotzur (as previously modified by Rosengaus, Samuelson, Forster, and Fujimoto) and Pettersson are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are both in the same field of construction site measurement and optical surveying instruments. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the high-low measuring device of Kotzur (as previously modified by Rosengaus, Samuelson, Forster, and Fujimoto) to include the handheld tilt sensor of Pettersson with a reasonable expectation of success. This modification would have been motivated by the desire to improve the portability and usability of measurement tools while maintaining high accuracy in inclinational readings. By integrating Pettersson’s teaching of a tilt sensor constituted as a handheld type into the system, the high-low measuring device can utilize a compact, handheld form factor to correct high-low information based on the detected tilt of the instrument center. A person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that configuring the tilt sensor as a handheld device would yield the predictable result of providing a more ergonomic and flexible measurement tool that still allows the arithmetic control module to precisely derive location displacement due to tilt movement.
Claims 6 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kotzur et al (US 10,753,740 B2) in view of Rosengaus et al. (US 2013/0096873 A1) and Samuelson (US 2017/0280114 A1) and in further view of Arksey (US 2014/0320603 A1).
Regarding Claim 6, Kotzur is not relied upon as teaching that said distance measurement sensor is a distance measurement camera.
However, Arksey teaches said distance measurement sensor is a distance measurement camera ([0046] fixed arrays of cameras… positioned… so that the system can calculated distances by parallax and from frames taken).
Kotzur (as previously modified by Rosengaus and Samuelson) and Arksey are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are both in the same field of construction site distance measurement and optical imaging. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the distance measurement sensor of Kotzur (as previously modified by Rosengaus and Samuelson) to include the distance measurement camera of Arksey with a reasonable expectation of success. This modification would have been motivated by the desire to utilize parallax-based calculations and image frames to determine distances without traditional laser range finding. By integrating Arksey’s teaching of fixed arrays of cameras positioned so that the system can calculate distances by parallax into the system, the high-low measuring device can utilize a distance measurement camera as the distance measurement sensor. A person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that using a camera-based sensor to acquire spatial data would yield the predictable result of capturing detailed visual records of the construction surface while simultaneously generating accurate distance measurements for high-low analysis.
Regarding Claim 7, Kotzur is not relied upon as teaching that said distance measurement sensor is a parallax camera.
However, Arksey teaches said distance measurement sensor is a parallax camera ([0046] fixed arrays of cameras… positioned… so that the system can calculated distances by parallax and from frames taken).
Kotzur (as previously modified by Rosengaus and Samuelson) and Arksey are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are both in the same field of construction site distance measurement and optical imaging. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the distance measurement sensor of Kotzur (as previously modified by Rosengaus and Samuelson) to include the distance measurement camera of Arksey with a reasonable expectation of success. This modification would have been motivated by the desire to utilize parallax-based calculations and image frames to determine distances without traditional laser range finding. By integrating Arksey’s teaching of fixed arrays of cameras positioned so that the system can calculate distances by parallax into the system, the high-low measuring device can utilize a distance measurement camera as the distance measurement sensor. A person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that using a camera-based sensor to acquire spatial data would yield the predictable result of capturing detailed visual records of the construction surface while simultaneously generating accurate distance measurements for high-low analysis.
Claims 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kotzur et al (US 10,753,740 B2) in view of Rosengaus et al. (US 2013/0096873 A1) and Samuelson (US 2017/0280114 A1) in further view of Mӧrwald (US 2021/0056716 A1).
Regarding Claim 8, Kotzur is not relied upon as teaching that said distance measurement sensor is constituted of a projector for projecting a pattern for measuring distance and a camera provided to produce a parallax with respect to said projector.
However, Mӧrwald teaches said distance measurement sensor is constituted of a projector for projecting a pattern for measuring distance and a camera provided to produce a parallax with respect to said projector ([0069]-[0071] The following sensors and its parameters of the mobile scanner MS serve as examples for parameters to be optimized… laser direction of an Electronic Distance Measurement (EMD) sensors, position and angular offset between cameras and/or projectors).
Kotzur (as previously modified by Rosengaus and Samuelson) and Mӧrwald are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are both in the same field of construction site distance measurement and optical sensor systems. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the distance measurement sensor of Kotzur (as previously modified by Rosengaus and Samuelson) to include the projector and camera system of Mӧrwald with a reasonable expectation of success. This modification would have been motivated by the desire to utilize structured light patterns and parallax offsets between cameras and projectors to enhance distance measurement accuracy. By integrating Mӧrwald’s teaching of a distance measurement sensor constituted of a projector for projecting a pattern and a camera provided to produce a parallax with respect to said projector into the system, the high-low measuring device can automatically acquire surface measurements by analyzing the displacement of projected patterns. A person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that using a projector-camera pair to measure distance would yield the predictable result of allowing the system to capture high-resolution elevation data across a surface without requiring physical contact or traditional laser ranging for every point.
Claims 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kotzur et al (US 10,753,740 B2) in view of Rosengaus et al. (US 2013/0096873 A1) and Samuelson (US 2017/0280114 A1) in further view of Ploetner (US 2022/0042794 A1).
Regarding Claim 9, Kotzur teaches distance measurement sensor is a laser length measuring device ([Col. 1, ll. 54-56] The shape sensor 21 measures the distance to a measurement point by emitting a laser).
Kotzur is not relied upon as teaching that said distance measurement sensor irradiates laser beams of a plurality of different colors and said arithmetic control module is configured to select a color of a laser beam in correspondence with the high-low information.
However, Ploetner teaches said distance measurement sensor irradiates laser beams of a plurality of different colors ([0042] the inspection system 130 can include multiple laser devises that produce different wavelength laser beams (e.g., green laser beams and red laser beams)), and said arithmetic control module is configured to select a color of a laser beam in correspondence with the high-low information (the routine 400 can select an appropriate wavelength laser beam…to enhance the contrast between the laser beam and the device case).
Kotzur (as previously modified by Rosengaus and Samuelson) and Ploetner are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are both in the same field of construction site distance measurement and laser-based inspection systems. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the distance measurement sensor of Kotzur (as previously modified by Rosengaus and Samuelson) to include the multi-wavelength laser system of Ploetner with a reasonable expectation of success. This modification would have been motivated by the desire to enhance the visual contrast of measurement indicators against different construction surface3s and ambient lighting conditions. By integrating Ploetner’s teaching of a distance measurement sensor that irradiates laser beams of a plurality of different colors into the system, the arithmetic control module can select a specific laser color in correspondence with the high-low information. A person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that varying laser color based on calculated height deviations would yield the predictable result of providing an intuitive, color=coded visual guide directly on the work surface to signal whether a point is high, low, or on-grade.
Claims 12 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kotzur et al (US 10,753,740 B2) in view of Rosengaus et al. (US 2013/0096873 A1) and Samuelson (US 2017/0280114 A1) in further view of Forster et al (US 2022/0326381 A1) and in even further view of Arksey (US 20140320603 A1).
Regarding Claim 12, Kotzur is not relied upon as teaching that said distance measurement sensor is a distance measurement camera.
However, Arksey teaches said distance measurement sensor is a distance measurement camera ([0046] fixed arrays of cameras… positioned… so that the system can calculated distances by parallax and from frames taken).
Kotzur (as previously modified by Rosengaus, Samuelson, and Forster) and Arksey are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are both in the same field of construction site distance measurement and optical imaging. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the distance measurement sensor of Kotzur (as previously modified by Rosengaus, Samuelson, and Forster) to include the distance measurement camera of Arksey with a reasonable expectation of success. This modification would have been motivated by the desire to utilize parallax-based calculations and image frames to determine distances without traditional laser range finding. By integrating Arksey’s teaching of fixed arrays of cameras positioned so that the system can calculate distances by parallax into the system, the high-low measuring device can utilize a distance measurement camera as the distance measurement sensor. A person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that using a camera-based sensor to acquire spatial data would yield the predictable result of capturing detailed visual records of the construction surface while simultaneously generating accurate distance measurements for high-low analysis.
Regarding Claims 14 Kotzur is not relied upon as teaching that said distance measurement sensor is a parallax camera.
However, Arksey teaches said distance measurement sensor is a parallax camera ([0046] fixed arrays of cameras… positioned… so that the system can calculated distances by parallax and from frames taken).
Kotzur (as previously modified by Rosengaus, Samuelson, and Forster) and Arksey are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are both in the same field of construction site distance measurement and optical imaging. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the distance measurement sensor of Kotzur (as previously modified by Rosengaus, Samuelson, and Forster) to include the distance measurement camera of Arksey with a reasonable expectation of success. This modification would have been motivated by the desire to utilize parallax-based calculations and image frames to determine distances without traditional laser range finding. By integrating Arksey’s teaching of fixed arrays of cameras positioned so that the system can calculate distances by parallax into the system, the high-low measuring device can utilize a distance measurement camera as the distance measurement sensor. A person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that using a camera-based sensor to acquire spatial data would yield the predictable result of capturing detailed visual records of the construction surface while simultaneously generating accurate distance measurements for high-low analysis.
Claims 13, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kotzur et al (US 10,753,740 B2) in view of Rosengaus et al. (US 2013/0096873 A1) and Samuelson (US 2017/0280114 A1) in further view of Forster et al (US 2022/0326381 A1), in even further view of Fujimoto (US 2017/0226708 A1) and as furthered by Arksey (US 2014/0320603 A1).
Regarding Claim 13, Kotzur is not relied upon as teaching that said distance measurement sensor is a distance measurement camera.
However, Arksey teaches said distance measurement sensor is a distance measurement camera ([0046] fixed arrays of cameras… positioned… so that the system can calculated distances by parallax and from frames taken).
Kotzur (as previously modified by Rosengaus, Samuelson, Forster, and Fujimoto) and Arksey are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are both in the same field of construction site distance measurement and optical imaging. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the distance measurement sensor of Kotzur (as previously modified by Rosengaus, Samuelson, Forster, and Fujimoto) to include the distance measurement camera of Arksey with a reasonable expectation of success. This modification would have been motivated by the desire to utilize parallax-based calculations and image frames to determine distances without traditional laser range finding. By integrating Arksey’s teaching of fixed arrays of cameras positioned so that the system can calculate distances by parallax into the system, the high-low measuring device can utilize a distance measurement camera as the distance measurement sensor. A person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that using a camera-based sensor to acquire spatial data would yield the predictable result of capturing detailed visual records of the construction surface while simultaneously generating accurate distance measurements for high-low analysis.
Regarding Claim 15, Kotzur is not relied upon as teaching that said distance measurement sensor is a parallax camera.
However, Arksey teaches said distance measurement sensor is a parallax camera ([0046] fixed arrays of cameras… positioned… so that the system can calculated distances by parallax and from frames taken).
Kotzur (as previously modified by Rosengaus, Samuelson, Forster, and Fujimoto) and Arksey are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are both in the same field of construction site distance measurement and optical imaging. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the distance measurement sensor of Kotzur (as previously modified by Rosengaus, Samuelson, Forster, and Fujimoto) to include the distance measurement camera of Arksey with a reasonable expectation of success. This modification would have been motivated by the desire to utilize parallax-based calculations and image frames to determine distances without traditional laser range finding. By integrating Arksey’s teaching of fixed arrays of cameras positioned so that the system can calculate distances by parallax into the system, the high-low measuring device can utilize a distance measurement camera as the distance measurement sensor. A person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that using a camera-based sensor to acquire spatial data would yield the predictable result of capturing detailed visual records of the construction surface while simultaneously generating accurate distance measurements for high-low analysis.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kotzur et al (US 10,753,740 B2) in view of Rosengaus et al. (US 2013/0096873 A1) and Samuelson (US 2017/0280114 A1) in further view of Forster et al (US 2022/0326381 A1) and in even further view of Mӧrwald (US 2021/0056716 A1).
Regarding Claim 16, Kotzur is not relied upon as teaching that said distance measurement sensor is constituted of a projector for projecting a pattern for measuring distance and a camera provided to produce a parallax with respect to said projector.
However, Mӧrwald teaches said distance measurement sensor is constituted of a projector for projecting a pattern for measuring distance and a camera provided to produce a parallax with respect to said projector ([0069]-[0071] The following sensors and its parameters of the mobile scanner MS serve as examples for parameters to be optimized… laser direction of an Electronic Distance Measurement (EMD) sensors, position and angular offset between cameras and/or projectors).
Kotzur (as previously modified by Rosengaus, Samuelson, and Forster) and Mӧrwald are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are both in the same field of construction site distance measurement and optical sensor systems. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the distance measurement sensor of Kotzur (as previously modified by Rosengaus, Samuelson, and Forster) to include the projector and camera system of Mӧrwald with a reasonable expectation of success. This modification would have been motivated by the desire to utilize structured light patterns and parallax offsets between cameras and projectors to enhance distance measurement accuracy. By integrating Mӧrwald’s teaching of a distance measurement sensor constituted of a projector for projecting a pattern and a camera provided to produce a parallax with respect to said projector into the system, the high-low measuring device can automatically acquire surface measurements by analyzing the displacement of projected patterns. A person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that using a projector-camera pair to measure distance would yield the predictable result of allowing the system to capture high-resolution elevation data across a surface without requiring physical contact or traditional laser ranging for every point.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kotzur et al (US 10,753,740 B2) in view of Rosengaus et al. (US 2013/0096873 A1) and Samuelson (US 2017/0280114 A1) in further view of Forster et al (US 2022/0326381 A1), in even further view of Fujimoto (US 2017/0226708 A1) and as furthered by Mӧrwald (US 2021/0056716 A1).
Regarding Claim 17, Kotzur is not relied upon as teaching that said distance measurement sensor is constituted of a projector for projecting a pattern for measuring distance and a camera provided to produce a parallax with respect to said projector.
However, Mӧrwald teaches said distance measurement sensor is constituted of a projector for projecting a pattern for measuring distance and a camera provided to produce a parallax with respect to said projector ([0069]-[0071] The following sensors and its parameters of the mobile scanner MS serve as examples for parameters to be optimized… laser direction of an Electronic Distance Measurement (EMD) sensors, position and angular offset between cameras and/or projectors).
Kotzur (as previously modified by Rosengaus, Samuelson, Forster, and Fujimoto) and Mӧrwald are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are both in the same field of construction site distance measurement and optical sensor systems. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the distance measurement sensor of Kotzur (as previously modified by Rosengaus, Samuelson, Forster, and Fujimoto) to include the projector and camera system of Mӧrwald with a reasonable expectation of success. This modification would have been motivated by the desire to utilize structured light patterns and parallax offsets between cameras and projectors to enhance distance measurement accuracy. By integrating Mӧrwald’s teaching of a distance measurement sensor constituted of a projector for projecting a pattern and a camera provided to produce a parallax with respect to said projector into the system, the high-low measuring device can automatically acquire surface measurements by analyzing the displacement of projected patterns. A person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that using a projector-camera pair to measure distance would yield the predictable result of allowing the system to capture high-resolution elevation data across a surface without requiring physical contact or traditional laser ranging for every point.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kotzur et al (US 10,753,740 B2) in view of Rosengaus et al. (US 2013/0096873 A1) and Samuelson (US 2017/0280114 A1) in further view of Forster et al (US 2022/0326381 A1) and in even further view of Ploetner (US 2022/0042794 A1).
Regarding Claim 18, Kotzur teaches distance measurement sensor is a laser length measuring device ([Col. 1, ll. 54-56] The shape sensor 21 measures the distance to a measurement point by emitting a laser).
Kotzur is not relied upon as teaching that said distance measurement sensor irradiates laser beams of a plurality of different colors and said arithmetic control module is configured to select a color of a laser beam in correspondence with the high-low information.
However, Ploetner teaches said distance measurement sensor irradiates laser beams of a plurality of different colors ([0042] the inspection system 130 can include multiple laser devises that produce different wavelength laser beams (e.g., green laser beams and red laser beams)), and said arithmetic control module is configured to select a color of a laser beam in correspondence with the high-low information (the routine 400 can select an appropriate wavelength laser beam…to enhance the contrast between the laser beam and the device case).
Kotzur (as previously modified by Rosengaus, Samuelson, and Forster) and Ploetner are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are both in the same field of construction site distance measurement and laser-based inspection systems. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the distance measurement sensor of Kotzur (as previously modified by Rosengaus, Samuelson, and Forster) to include the multi-wavelength laser system of Ploetner with a reasonable expectation of success. This modification would have been motivated by the desire to enhance the visual contrast of measurement indicators against different construction surface3s and ambient lighting conditions. By integrating Ploetner’s teaching of a distance measurement sensor that irradiates laser beams of a plurality of different colors into the system, the arithmetic control module can select a specific laser color in correspondence with the high-low information. A person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that varying laser color based on calculated height deviations would yield the predictable result of providing an intuitive, color=coded visual guide directly on the work surface to signal whether a point is high, low, or on-grade.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kotzur et al (US 10,753,740 B2) in view of Rosengaus et al. (US 2013/0096873 A1) and Samuelson (US 2017/0280114 A1) in further view of Forster et al (US 2022/0326381 A1), in even further view of Fujimoto (US 2017/0226708 A1) and as furthered by Ploetner (US 2022/0042794 A1).
Regarding Claim 19, Kotzur teaches distance measurement sensor is a laser length measuring device ([Col. 1, ll. 54-56] The shape sensor 21 measures the distance to a measurement point by emitting a laser).
Kotzur is not relied upon as teaching that said distance measurement sensor irradiates laser beams of a plurality of different colors and said arithmetic control module is configured to select a color of a laser beam in correspondence with the high-low information.
However, Ploetner teaches said distance measurement sensor irradiates laser beams of a plurality of different colors ([0042] the inspection system 130 can include multiple laser devises that produce different wavelength laser beams (e.g., green laser beams and red laser beams)), and said arithmetic control module is configured to select a color of a laser beam in correspondence with the high-low information (the routine 400 can select an appropriate wavelength laser beam…to enhance the contrast between the laser beam and the device case).
Kotzur (as previously modified by Rosengaus, Samuelson, Forster, and Fujimoto) and Ploetner are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are both in the same field of construction site distance measurement and laser-based inspection systems. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the distance measurement sensor of Kotzur (as previously modified by Rosengaus, Samuelson, Forster, and Fujimoto) to include the multi-wavelength laser system of Ploetner with a reasonable expectation of success. This modification would have been motivated by the desire to enhance the visual contrast of measurement indicators against different construction surface3s and ambient lighting conditions. By integrating Ploetner’s teaching of a distance measurement sensor that irradiates laser beams of a plurality of different colors into the system, the arithmetic control module can select a specific laser color in correspondence with the high-low information. A person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that varying laser color based on calculated height deviations would yield the predictable result of providing an intuitive, color=coded visual guide directly on the work surface to signal whether a point is high, low, or on-grade.
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.
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.
/E.H.H./ Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3645
/HELAL A ALGAHAIM/ SPE , Art Unit 3645
Prosecution Insights