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 .
This is the first office action on the merits and is responsive to the papers filed 05/25/2023. Claims 1-13 are currently pending and examined below.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d).
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements submitted by Applicant are in compliance with the provision of 37 CFR 1.97, 1.98 and MPEP § 609. They have been placed in the application file and the information referred to therein has been considered as to the merits.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-13 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-7, 14-23 of copending Application No. 18/038063 in view of Joachim Kramer (US 20130250302 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, a comparison of limitations is shown below. The limitations highlighted in claim 1 are taught by Yasutomi et al. (US 2021/0124021 A1).
Instant application 18/038061
Application 18/038063
Claim 1.
A laser scanner comprising a laser head for emitting a measurement beam of a rotating deflection unit driven by a drive for deflecting the measurement beam in a direction of a measuring object,
a detector module for detecting a reception/measurement beam reflected by the measuring object, and
a control and evaluation unit for signal processing,
the deflection unit having a hollow spindle, which carries a beam guide to which a deflection mirror is associated for deflecting the reception/measurement beam in the direction of or from an outlet window held on a rotor housing
wherein at least one pocket is formed on the beam guide, which is aligned in such a way that stray light reflected by a protective glass is deflected by the mirror in the direction of the pocket.
Claim 1.
A laser scanner comprising a laser head for emitting a measurement beam of a rotating deflection unit driven by a drive for deflecting the measurement beam in a direction of a measuring object,
a detector module for detecting a reception/measurement beam reflected by the measuring object, and
a control and evaluation unit for signal processing,
the rotating deflection unit having a hollow spindle, which carries a beam guide to which a deflection mirror is associated for deflecting the reception/measurement beam in the direction of or from an outlet window held on a rotor housing,
wherein the deflection mirror is fixed to the beam guide or to the hollow spindle.
However, Yasutomi fails to teach
wherein at least one pocket is formed on the beam guide, which is aligned in such a way that stray light reflected by a protective glass is deflected by the mirror in the direction of the pocket.
On the other hand, Kramer discloses such stray-light trapping structure. Specifically, Kramer discloses that reflections from the front screen can interfere with measurement and should be captured in an optical trap (Para 6). Kramer further discloses that an optical trap may be formed as an aperture having a cavity for capturing and absorbing reflected light (Para 37, stating “The optical trap may be formed for example as an aperture with an opening in the focus area and having a cavity. Inside, the optical trap preferably comprises light absorbing material such as black coating, black velvet, or anodized aluminum.”). This cavity corresponds to a pocket formed in a structural component aligned to receive stray light reflected by the front screen. See also, para 60, 64, The optical trap is positioned in alignment with reflected light focused by the front screen, thereby capturing stray light reflected by the protective glass.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the laser scanner of Yasutomi to include the optical trap cavity of Kramer positioned in alignment with the reflection path of light reflected by the front screen in order to capture stray reflections and improve signal quality and measurement reliability. Such modification represents the predictable use of prior art stray-light suppression techniques in laser scanners, as taught by Kramer (Para 6, 37), to improve measurement accuracy in the scanner architecture of Yasutomi.
For claims 2-13, similar analysis can be made to show the instant claims are obvious variations of claims 2-7, 14-23, with references cited in the prior art rejections below. In the interest of brevity, please see rejections in the prior art section.
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 1-7, 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yasutomi et al. (US 2021/0124021 A1, “Yasutomi”) in view of Joachim Kramer (US 20130250302 A1 “Kramer”).
Regarding claim 1, Yasutomi teaches a laser scanner (Para 30-31) comprising a laser head for emitting a measurement beam (Figs. 1- 2, 43-44, Yasutomi discloses a distance measuring unit 36 including a light emitting element configured to emit distance-measuring light toward a measurement target) of a rotating deflection unit driven by a drive (Fig. 2, Para 38-41 disclose a turning mirror 35 forming part of a deflection unit rotated by a vertical rotation driving unit 33)for deflecting the measurement beam in a direction of a measuring object (Para 44 discloses the turning mirror deflecting emitted light to scan a measurement target),
a detector module for detecting a reception/measurement beam reflected by the measuring object (Para 45-46 disclose light receiving unit 36e configured to detect reflected distance-measuring light), and
a control and evaluation unit for signal processing (Para 48, 53, 56, control operation unit 40 configured to process received signals and determine distance),
the deflection unit having a hollow spindle (Para 39, vertical rotating shaft 31 being a hollow cylindrical member forming part of the rotating deflection unit), which carries a beam guide to which a deflection mirror is associated (Para 39, turning mirror 35 mounted within and carried by the hollow vertical rotating shaft 31) for deflecting the reception/measurement beam in the direction of or from an outlet window held on a rotor housing (Para 40, projection cover 30b mounted on the rotating shaft and having window 30b1 with transparent resin plate transmitting measurement light),
wherein at least one pocket is formed on the beam guide, which is aligned in such a way that stray light reflected by a protective glass is deflected by the mirror in the direction of the pocket.
Yasutomi does not explicitly disclose that at least one pocket is formed on the beam guide aligned such that stray light reflected by a protective glass is deflected by the mirror in the direction of the pocket.
Kramer discloses such stray-light trapping structure. Specifically, Kramer discloses that reflections from the front screen can interfere with measurement and should be captured in an optical trap (Para 6). Kramer further discloses that an optical trap may be formed as an aperture having a cavity for capturing and absorbing reflected light (Para 37, stating “The optical trap may be formed for example as an aperture with an opening in the focus area and having a cavity. Inside, the optical trap preferably comprises light absorbing material such as black coating, black velvet, or anodized aluminum.”). This cavity corresponds to a pocket formed in a structural component aligned to receive stray light reflected by the front screen. See also, para 60, 64, The optical trap is positioned in alignment with reflected light focused by the front screen, thereby capturing stray light reflected by the protective glass.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the laser scanner of Yasutomi to include the optical trap cavity of Kramer positioned in alignment with the reflection path of light reflected by the front screen in order to capture stray reflections and improve signal quality and measurement reliability. Such modification represents the predictable use of prior art stray-light suppression techniques in laser scanners, as taught by Kramer (Para 6, 37), to improve measurement accuracy in the scanner architecture of Yasutomi.
Regarding claim 2, Yasutomi, in view of Kramer, teaches the laser scanner according to claim 1, wherein the pocket is provided with a reflection-reducing coating (Kramer discloses that the optical trap cavity comprises light absorbing material such as black coating, black velvet, or anodized aluminum (Para 37). Such black coating constitutes a reflection-reducing coating configured to absorb stray light reflections.
It would have been obvious to apply Kramer’s reflection-reducing coating to the pocket incorporated into Yasutomi’s scanner as discussed above in order to improve absorption of stray reflections and improve measurement reliability, as taught by Kramer.).
Regarding claim 3, Yasutomi, in view of Kramer, teaches the laser scanner according to claim 2, wherein the coating comprises at least one black anti-reflection varnish (Kramer discloses that the optical trap cavity includes black coating material for absorbing light reflections (Para 37). Such black coating constitutes an anti-reflection coating material equivalent to black anti-reflection varnish for absorbing stray light reflections.
It would have been obvious to utilize black anti-reflection varnish as the light absorbing coating in the pocket structure of the modified Yasutomi scanner because Kramer explicitly teaches using black coating material to absorb stray light reflections and improve measurement performance.).
Regarding claim 4, Yasutomi, in view of Kramer, teaches the laser scanner according to claim 1, wherein the at least one pocket opens into an inclined end face of the beam guide.
Yasutomi (Fig. para 39) discloses that the turning mirror 35 is mounted inside the hollow vertical rotating shaft and inclined at an angle of 45° relative to the shaft axis. This inclined mounting defines inclined beam guide structural surfaces.
Kramer (Para 37) discloses positioning the optical trap relative to the optical beam guide and mirror such that stray light is directed into the trap.
It would have been obvious to position the optical trap on an inclined end face of the beam guide of Yasutomi to capture stray reflections as taught by Kramer.
Regarding claim 5, Yasutomi, in view of Kramer, teaches the laser scanner according to claim 1, wherein at least one pocket opens into a screw bore.
Yasutomi (Para 33, 37) discloses that scanner unit components and optical structures are mounted using screws. Screw-mounted structures may include screw bores.
It would have been obvious to form the optical trap pocket of Kramer in an existing screw bore or structural cavity of the beam guide of Yasutomi in order to efficiently capture stray light without increasing device size.
Regarding claim 6, Yasutomi, in view of Kramer, teaches the laser scanner according to claim 1, wherein the deflection mirror is attached to the beam guide (Yasutomi (Para 39) discloses mirror mounted inside rotating shaft beam-guide structure.).
Regarding claim 7, Yasutomi, in view of Kramer, teaches the laser scanner according to claim 6, wherein, in a region between the protective glass of the outlet window and the beam guide, a seal is provided along which the protective glass rests (Yasutomi (Para 40) discloses transparent resin plate forming window in projection cover housing mirror).
Regarding claim 9, Yasutomi, in view of Kramer, teaches the laser scanner according to claim 7, wherein the mirror is located on an inclined end face of the beam guide (Yasutomi (Para 39) discloses the turning mirror is inclined at approximately 45° within the hollow shaft).
Claims 8, 10, 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yasutomi et in view of Kramer and Matthias et al (US 20190331911 A1).
Regarding claim 8, Yasutomi, in view of Kramer, fails to explicitly teach the laser scanner according to claim 1, wherein the deflection mirror is located between the beam guide and a counterweight connected to the beam guide.
Matthias (Para 79) discloses that the mirror rotor is formed as a cylindrical rotor body designed to be axially symmetric and nearly perfectly balanced. A balanced rotor may include balancing mass corresponding to a counterweight integrated into the rotor structure.
It would have been obvious to configure the rotating shaft and mirror assembly of Yasutomi as a balanced rotor structure as taught by Matthias in order to improve rotational stability, reduce vibration, and improve scanning accuracy, since balanced rotor structures are well-known and predictable solutions for rotating optical systems.
Regarding claim 10, Yasutomi, in view of Kramer, teaches the laser scanner according to claim 1, wherein the rotor housing encompasses the deflection mirror, the beam guide (and a counterweight) at least in sections and is attached to a front flange of the hollow spindle.
Yasutomi discloses a rotor housing encompassing the deflection mirror and beam guide. Specifically, Yasutomi discloses a scanner housing 30 and projection cover 30b associated with a hollow vertical rotating shaft 31 (beam guide), wherein the hollow shaft carries a turning mirror 35 positioned inside the shaft (Para 38-39). Yasutomi further discloses that projection cover 30b protects and encloses the mirror and rotates integrally with the vertical rotating shaft 31, thereby encompassing the mirror and beam guide and constituting a rotor housing attached to the hollow spindle (Para 40). The projection cover rotating integrally with the shaft necessarily is attached to the shaft structure corresponding to attachment at a front flange region of the hollow spindle.
Yasutomi does not explicitly disclose a counterweight connected to the beam guide. Matthias discloses a cylindrical mirror rotor structure configured to be axially symmetric and nearly perfectly balanced to ensure stable rotation (Para 79). Such balanced cylindrical rotor construction may include mass distribution corresponding to a counterweight connected to the beam guide. It would have been obvious to incorporate the balanced rotor structure of Matthias into the rotating shaft and rotor housing of Yasutomi in order to improve rotational stability, reduce vibration, and ensure reliable high-speed operation, since Matthias teaches that balanced cylindrical rotor construction improves rotational stability of mirror assemblies (Para 63, 79).
Regarding claim 11, Yasutomi, in view of Kramer and Matthias, teaches the laser scanner according to claim 8, wherein a counterweight and/or the beam guide are plate-shaped or web-shaped.
Yasutomi discloses a rotating beam guide comprising hollow vertical rotating shaft 31 carrying turning mirror 35 (Para 39). Matthias discloses a mirror rotor assembly including a rotary support structure 218 having angled surface 222 that supports mirror 202 and is connected to shaft 216, wherein the support structure forms part of the rotating beam guide assembly and provides structural support and balancing of the mirror (Para 65-67). Such support structures correspond to plate-shaped or web-shaped structural elements forming the beam guide and balancing structure. Matthias further discloses that the cylindrical rotor body is configured to be axially symmetric and balanced (Para 79), corresponding to counterweight structure integrated into the beam guide. It would have been obvious to implement the beam guide of Yasutomi using plate-shaped or web-shaped support structures as taught by Matthias in order to improve structural rigidity and rotational stability, since Matthias teaches such structures improve rotor stability and balance during rotation.
Regarding claim 12, Yasutomi, in view of Kramer and Matthias, teaches the laser scanner according to claim 10, wherein the front flange carries drive means, preferably a toothed rim.
Yasutomi discloses drive means for rotating the hollow spindle and beam guide assembly, specifically vertical rotation driving unit 33 configured to rotate vertical rotating shaft 31 (Para 41). The shaft is supported and driven via mechanical interfaces corresponding to attachment at a front flange region (Para 39-41). Matthias further discloses drive element 530 engaged with support structure 520 to rotate cylindrical mirror rotor body 506 (Para 88). This corresponds to drive means carried by the front flange or rotor support structure. It would have been obvious to implement the drive interface of Yasutomi using drive engagement structures such as those taught by Matthias in order to provide reliable torque transmission and stable rotation, since Matthias teaches such drive engagement structures for rotating mirror rotor assemblies.
Regarding claim 13, Yasutomi, in view of Kramer, fails to explicitly teach the laser scanner according to claim 1, wherein the deflection mirror consists of a material with a lower specific weight than aluminum, preferably silicon carbide (Para 81, such mirrors may be formed from silicon carbide materials).
Yasutomi discloses a laser scanner including a rotating deflection mirror 35 positioned inside hollow rotating shaft 31 and configured to deflect emitted and received measurement light during scanning (Para 39, 44-46). However, Yasutomi does not explicitly disclose the material of the deflection mirror. Matthias discloses mirror assemblies for rotating laser scanners in which the mirror is formed as part of a cylindrical rotor body constructed from lightweight materials such as glass (Para 79). Glass has a lower specific weight than aluminum and thus corresponds to the claimed mirror material having lower specific weight than aluminum. Matthias further teaches that mirrors may be formed from silicon carbide materials (Para 81), which corresponds to the claimed preferred mirror material. It would have been obvious to form the deflection mirror of Yasutomi using lightweight materials such as glass or silicon carbide as taught by Matthias in order to reduce rotational inertia, improve rotational stability, and improve scanning performance, since Matthias teaches that such materials improve mirror rotor performance in rotating scanning systems.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Roger Buser (EP 3699638 A1), teaches Optoelectronic Sensor and Method for Detecting an Object
Bestler et al. (US 20150098075 A1), teaches Scanner for space measurement
Schumann et al. (US 20120287265 A1), teaches Device for optically scanning and measuring an environment
Froehlich et al. (US 20030043386 A1), teaches Laser Measurement System
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JEMPSON NOEL whose telephone number is (571) 272-3376. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 8:00-5:00.
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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JEMPSON NOEL/Examiner, Art Unit 3645
/YUQING XIAO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3645