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 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 1-6, 9, 10, 13, 14, 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Shaffer (US 2018/0180740 A1, Published June 28, 2018).
As to claim 1, Shaffer discloses a method for repeatedly measuring position of a construction device on a construction site (Shaffer at ¶ [0001]-[0002], [0039]) wherein a position is measured relative to at least two markings (Shaffer at Fig. 1, markers 104; ¶ [0037]; Fig. 7) the method comprising
a. directly measuring distances from a position measurement system arranged and/or formed on the construction device to the at least two of the markings located in a field of view of the position measurement system (Shaffer at Fig. 1, paths 112 between markers 104 and laser scanner 106; ¶ [0042]; Fig. 2, 7, step 720), and
measuring the apparent viewing angles of the at least two markings from the position measurement system in order to carry out a first measurement of the position of the construction device (Shaffer at Figs. 2; ¶ [0045], [0047]; Fig. 7, steps 730-740), and
b. taking a bearing of the at least two of the markings from the position measurement system in order to carry out a second measurement of the position of the construction device (Shaffer at Figs. 2; ¶ [0048] discloses “Accordingly, using the measured positions of the markers A-G, the robotic device 102 can determine two-dimensional sensor coordinates (x.sub.s, y.sub.s) of the laser scanner 106 within the map 200 of the horizontal marker plane, as well as an orientation or heading angle of the robotic device 102.” Fig. 7, step 750).
As to claim 2, Shaffer discloses the method as claimed in claim 1, wherein an electromagnetic beam is emitted, in order to measure the distances and/or to measure at least one of the apparent viewing angles (Shaffer at Fig. 1; ¶ [0039], [0042]. Light is necessarily electromagnetic).
As to claim 3, Shaffer discloses the method as claimed in claim 1, including using an intensity sensor for measuring an intensity of a reflection of the beam is used when measuring the distances and/or the apparent viewing angles and/or when taking a bearing (Shaffer at ¶ [0042] discloses “Based on various characteristics of the reflected light (e.g., based on an intensity and a time-of-flight of the detected light), the laser scanner 106 or some other computing device can identify the presence of a marker and the location of the marker relative to the laser scanner 106.”).
As to claim 4, Shaffer discloses the method as claimed in claim 1, including using an inertial measurement unit and/or an angle encoder when measuring the apparent viewing angles and/or taking a bearing (Shaffer at ¶ [0049] discloses “Moreover, once initial sensor coordinates of the laser scanner 106 are determined, the robotic device 102 can use dead reckoning techniques (e.g., based on a detected wheel speed and direction of travel and/or by using an inertial measurement unit (IMU)) to determine subsequent sensor coordinates. Other examples are possible as well.”).
As to claim 5, Shaffer discloses the method as claimed in claim 2, including rotating the beam in a horizontal or at least substantially horizontal plane (Shaffer at Fig. 1, arrow 110; ¶ [0040], [0045]).
As to claim 6, Shaffer discloses the method as claimed in claim 1, comprising a search step in which the at least two markings are searched for within the construction site by the position measurement system (Shaffer at Figs. 1-2, 7).
As to claim 9, Shaffer discloses the method as claimed in claim 1, wherein the apparent viewing angles (Alpha1, Alpha2, Alpha3) and/or angles measured when taking a bearing are measured relative to an internal coordinate system of the construction device (Shaffer at Figs. 1, 2, 7).
As to claim 10, Shaffer discloses the method as claimed in claim 1, wherein at least one further position measurement is carried out, with a camera system being used (Shaffer at ¶ [0039], [0049]).
As to claim 13, Shaffer discloses a position measurement system, configured to carry out the method as claimed in claim 1 comprising a direct rangefinder unit for directly measuring a distance between the position measurement system and a marking, a viewing angle measurement unit for measuring an apparent viewing angle of the marking from the position measurement system, and a bearing unit for taking a bearing of the marking (Shaffer at Figs. 1-2, 7; ¶ [0042]).
As to claim 14, Shaffer discloses the position measurement system as claimed in claim 13, wherein the position measurement system has a camera system (Shaffer at ¶ [0039], [0049]).
As to claim 16, Shaffer discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the position is measured relative to at least three markings (Shaffer at Figs. 1-2).
As to claim 17, Shaffer discloses the method of claim 16, wherein a. comprises directly measuring the distances from the position measurement system to all of the markings (Shaffer at Figs. 1-2).
As to claim 18, Shaffer discloses the method of claim 2, wherein the electromagnetic beam is a laser beam (Shaffer at Fig. 1; ¶ [0039], [0042]).
As to claim 19, Shaffer discloses the method of claim 5, including rotating the beam through 360° in a horizontal or at least substantially horizontal plane (Shaffer at Fig. 1).
As to claim 20, Shaffer discloses the method of claim 6, wherein the at least two markings are searched for within the construction site by an intensity sensor (Shaffer at Figs. 1-2).
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 8, 11, 12, 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shaffer (US 2018/0180740 A1, Published June 28, 2018).
As to claim 8, Shaffer discloses the method as claimed in claim 1, wherein at least one of the markings has a height of at least 30 cm (Shaffer at Fig. 1, h2; ¶ [0038]. MPEP 2144.05(II) establishes that optimization of ranges is obvious).
As to claim 11, Shaffer discloses the method as claimed in claim 1, wherein at least one position is determined by mechanical contact with a surface region of a construction element of the construction site (Examiner takes an official notice that automated vacuum cleaners, such as the Roomba robotic vacuum, are well known in the art for having obstacle collision detection then avoidance features for mapping the boundaries of a room. In view of the officially noticed facts, it would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill to provide such detection by mechanical contact for the well-known purpose of ascertaining or mapping the boundaries of an area).
As to claim 12, Shaffer discloses the method as claimed in claim 11, wherein the position of the mechanical contact corresponds to the position of a surface work on the surface region (Examiner takes an official notice that automated vacuum cleaners, such as the Roomba robotic vacuum, are well known in the art for having obstacle collision detection then avoidance features for mapping the boundaries of a room. In view of the officially noticed facts, it would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill to provide such detection by mechanical contact for the well-known purpose of ascertaining or mapping the boundaries of an area).
As to claim 15, Shaffer discloses a mobile construction device (Shaffer at ¶ [0001], [0039]) comprising a position measurement system as claimed in claim 13.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Sanjiv D Patel whose telephone number is (571)270-5731. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9:00 am - 5:00 pm.
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, William Boddie can be reached at 571-272-0666. 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.
/Sanjiv D. Patel/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2625
01/22/2026