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
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements filed 4/13/2023, 2/21/2023 and 9/21/2023 have been considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawing filed 4/13/2023 are approved by the examiner.
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 23, 25, 26 and 28-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 23 recites: The laser scanner according to claim 1, wherein an adjustment direction of a reference plate is oriented transversely to the measurement beam.
The relationship of the “a reference plate” to parent claim 1 is not clear.
It is suggested that claim 23 be amended to: The laser scanner according to claim 1, wherein an adjustment direction of a reference plate of the reference module is oriented transversely to the measurement beam.
Claim 25 recites: The laser scanner according to claim 24, wherein the housing has a height, relative to a footprint, which is smaller than a three-fold of an outer diameter of the deflection unit.
It is not clear what element of the scanner defines the relative footprint, thus rendering the meets and bounds of claim 25 indefinite.
Claim 26 depends on claim 25.
Claim 28 recites: The laser scanner according to claim 27, wherein a base area of the housing which is spaced apart from a footprint is slopingly inclined in an area spaced apart from the rotor head.
It is not clear what element of the scanner defines a footprint, thus rendering the meets and bounds of claim 28 indefinite.
Claim 29 recites: The laser scanner according to claim 1, comprising sensors, for detecting a reference plate position.
The relationship of the “a reference plate” to parent claim 1 is not clear.
It is suggested that claim 29 be amended to: The laser scanner according to claim 1, comprising sensors, for detecting a position of a reference plate of the reference module.
Claim 30 depends on claim 29.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1 and 24-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Missbach (DE 102019111852).
With respect to claim 1, Missbach discloses: A 2D laser scanner [ taught by figures 1 and 2 ] comprising a laser head for outputting a measurement beam, a rotating deflection unit for deflecting the measurement beam in a direction of a measurement object [ the examiner provided translation states, “…The deflection unit 18th is designed in this embodiment as a rotating mirror, which is driven by a motor 28 rotates continuously. The respective angular position of the motor 28 or the deflection unit 18th is recognized by an encoder, for example a code disk 30th and a fork light barrier 32 includes. The one from the light transmitter 12 generated light beam 16 thus sweeps over the monitoring area generated by the rotational movement 20th . Instead of a rotating mirror, it is also possible to use the deflection unit 18th trained as a rotating optical head in the light transmitter 12 and / or light receiver 26 and possibly other elements are accommodated...” ], which deflection unit is driven by means of a drive and is received in rotor head which is rotatably mounted on a housing [ taught by motor (28); figures 1 and 2 show the elements (18) and (28) in a housing (42) ], a detector module for detecting a receiver/measurement beam reflected from the measurement object [ taught by light receiver (26) ], and a control and evaluation unit for signal processing [ taught by control and evaluation unit (36) ], as well as a reference module [ taught by reference target (40) ], wherein the drive, the laser head, the detector module, the control unit, and the reference module are received in the housing [ figures 1 and 2 show elements 18, 26, 36 and 40 in housing (42) ].
Claim 24 is met by the arrangement of elements 18, 26, 36 and 40 shown by figures 1 and 2.
Claims 25 and 26, as presently understood under 35 USC 112, are anticipated by the dimensions shown by figures 1 and 2 of Missbach.
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 27 and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Missbach (DE 102019111852) in view of Yawakawa et al (United States Patent Application Publication No. 20200209522).
Claim 27 differs from Missbach by specifying the housing is of approximately cuboid shape with substantially smooth-faced, rounded walls.
Figure 4 of Yawakawa et al teaches that housing for laser measuring devices were known before the effective filing date of the present application to have approximated a cuboid shape with smooth faced, rounded walls.
Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to have had a reasonable expectation of success in using a housing in the device of Missbach meeting claim 27 because Yawakawa et al taught this was a known type of housing.
Claim 28, as presently understood under 35 USC 112, is met by the combination of Missbach and Yawakawa et al, as applied to claim 27.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2, 3 and 16-22 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 23, 29 and 30 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 and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Any inquiry concerning this communication should be directed to MARK HELLNER at telephone number (571)272-6981.
Examiner interviews are available via a variety of formats. See MPEP § 713.01. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
/MARK HELLNER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3645