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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 23 is objected to because of the following informalities: the word “a” is missing before “movement means” and “extraction means”. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
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: “measurement device”, “movement unit”, and “extraction unit” in claims 1-19 and 23. Note: although Applicant has amended the claims to remove “means for..” language from these claims, the limitations “measurement device”, “movement unit”, and “extraction unit” are described entirely in terms of their function, without reciting significant structure or material to perform the function.
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 § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-3, 7-8, 12-14, 18-19, and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Froehlich et al. (US 2003/0043386).
With regard to claim 1, Froehlich et al. disclose a measurement device (see Fig. 1 and paragraphs [0018-0019] ) arranged at a measurement point in an inside of a tunnel (paragraph [0028]), the measurement device having a reference point (optical receiver such as APD, para. [0028]) and being configured to acquire, as point cloud data, a plurality of pieces of data including a coordinate value (3-D scan from angle and position of measuring head) and a brightness (intensity) value of a wall surface of the tunnel by using one or more beams (16) irradiated in irradiation directions at a plurality of different angles with respect to the reference point (rotary head 12 containing measurement head) and receiving reflected light of the beam resulting from scanning the wall surface;
movement means (moving measuring carriage, para. [0030]) for moving unit configured to move the measurement device to a plurality of the measurement points in an inside of the tunnel; and
extraction means (computer system, para. [0002]) for extracting unit configured to extract the data in point cloud data acquired by the measurement device for each measurement point, based on a distance from the measurement point.
Note: intensity is a measure of brightness.
With regard to claim 12, Froehlich et al. disclose an extraction device comprising, when a measurement device arranged at a measurement point in an inside of a tunnel is moved to a plurality of the measurement points in an inside of the tunnel (in tunnel, paragraph [0028], moving measuring carriage, para. [0030]), the measurement device having a reference point (3D coordinates) and being configured to acquire, as point cloud data, a plurality of pieces of data including a coordinate value and a brightness (intensity) value of a wall surface of the tunnel by using one or more beams irradiated in irradiation directions at a plurality of different angles with respect to the reference point and receiving reflected light of the beam resulting from scanning the wall surface ( optical receiver such as APD, receiving reflected light directed at different angles by emitter on rotary head 12, pars. [0018-0019]), extraction means (computer system, para. [0002]) for extracting unit configured to extract the data in point cloud data acquired by the measurement device for each measurement point, based on a distance from the measurement point.
With regard to claim 23, Froehlich et al. disclose an inspection method comprising:
causing a measurement device (Fig. 2, para. [0028]) arranged at a measurement point in an inside of a tunnel, the measurement device having a reference point (measurement head), to acquire, as point cloud data), a plurality of pieces of data including a coordinate value (3D coordinates) and a brightness (intensity) value of a wall surface of the tunnel by using one or more beams irradiated in irradiation directions at a plurality of different angles with respect to the reference point, and receiving reflected light of the beam resulting from scanning the wall surface (emitting light and receiving reflected light directed at different angles by emitter on rotary head 12, pars. [0018-0019]); causing movement means-unit to move the measurement device to a plurality of the measurement points in an inside of the tunnel (in tunnel, paragraph [0028], moving measuring carriage, para. [0030]), and causing extraction means-unit (computer system, para. [0002]) to extract the data in the point cloud data acquired by the measurement device for each measurement point, based on a distance from the measurement point.
With regard to claims 2 and 13, the beams rotate around the rotation axis (14) at a plurality of angles with respect to the rotation center axis, and the measurement device receives reflected light of the beam resulting from scanning a wall surface of the tunnel to acquire the point could data.
With regard to claims 3 and 14, the extraction unit extracts data on a vertical plane orthogonal to the rotation center axis (para. [0019]).
With regard to claims 7-8 and 18-19, the 3D-measurement data is stored on a computer system (para. [0002]), which inherently includes a memory. The 3D-measurement data (distance and reflectivity images) are organized in a coordinate system (para. [0003]).
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(s) 4-5 and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Froehlich et al. as applied to claims 1 and 12 above, and further in view of Akiona (US 2020/0064219).
Froehlich does not disclose, but Akiona teaches in the same field of endeavor, that a measurement device acquires point cloud data when the measurement device is moved by aligning a rotation center axis with a moving direction, which is also a center axis of the tunnel in which it is moving (Fig. 1, para. [0030], pipeline inspection crawler (100) moves in direction of central axis along pipeline, transmitter assembly (128) rotates about the central axis). The configuration of Akiona in which the measurement device moves along the center axis of rotation, which is also the center axis of the pipeline, permits measurements and 3D point cloud data extending along the interior of a pipeline (Abstract); therefore one skilled in the art, e. g. an optical engineer, would have found it obvious before the effective filing date of the application, to configure the moving carriage of the measurement device to move along the direction of the tunnel as taught by Akiona, which would also be the direction of the center axis of rotation of the measurement head of Froehlich et al.
Claim(s) 6, 9-11, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Froehlich as applied to claims 1 and 12 above, and further in view of Schiavone et al. (US 2019/0339150).
With regard to claims 9 and 11, Froehlich et al. do not disclose, but Schiavone teaches in the same field of endeavor, a measurement device (comprising a LIDAR sensor, para. [0055]) with a calculation unit that calculates a surface approximating an original shape of the wall surface (of a pipeline), based on the coordinate value of the data included in the point cloud data (para. [0105-0106], control data points used for Bezier curves to determine each cross section of pipe, for modeling shape). The calculation unit may be a computer using processors, memory, computer software and other components (para. [0138]). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art, e. g. an optical engineer before the effective filing date of the application, to include the calculation unit taught by Schiavone, in the measurement device of Froehlich, for the advantage of determining a pipe or tunnel shape and thereby to identify erosion or deformities indicating pending collapse or failure (para. [0048]).
With regard to claims 6, 10 and 17, Froehlich et al. do not disclose, but Schiavone teaches in the same field of endeavor, a measurement device (LIDAR), with an extraction unit that extracts data indicating a shortest distance from the measurement point (to the pipe wall being imaged, Fig. 36 and para. [0130]). The determination of the shortest distance to the wall is important for relining repairs of the pipe (para. [0100]). For the same purpose or for similarly determining how to reline a tunnel, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the application to one skilled in the art, e. g. an optical engineer, configure the extraction device to determine the shortest distance from the measurement point, in the measurement device and inspection system of Froehlich et al.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed on March 29, 2023 has been considered by the Examiner.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Becker discloses a 3D range-finder.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to ERIC L BOLDA whose telephone number is 571-272-8104. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F from 8:30am to 5pm.
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.
/ERIC L BOLDA/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3645