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 .
Claims 1-20 are currently pending and examined below.
Response to amendment
This is a final Office action in response to applicant's remarks/arguments filed on 03/23/2026.
Status of the claims:
Claims 1,8, 11, 18 have been amended.
The rejection of claims 8, 18 under 35 U.S.C. 112 (b) is withdrawn in response to Applicant's amendment filed on 03/23/2026.
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks pages 8-9, filed 03/23/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-20 under 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Gawronek et al. “TLS Measurement during Static Load Testing of a Railway Bridge, 2019” necessitated by the claim amendment.
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 1-20 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 1, “the location” in line 13 lacks antecedent basis.
Claim 11, “the location” in line 2 from the bottom lacks antecedent basis.
Claims 2-10, 12-20 are rejected due to claim dependency.
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 1-5, 7-15, 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bhowmick et al. (US 20190080503 A1, “Bhowmick”) in view of Komeichi et al. (US 10488196 B2, “Komeichi”) and Gawronek et al. “TLS Measurement during Static Load Testing of a Railway Bridge, 2019” (“Gawronek”).
Regarding claim 1, Bhowmick teaches a method for tracking an object comprising:
receiving point cloud data from a three-dimensional (3D) coordinate measurement device, the point cloud data corresponding at least in part to the object (Para 4 and 37, “…acquiring a reference point-cloud defining a reference surface and a template point-cloud defining a template surface…”) (and collected during an event when the object is subjected to at least one of a load or force);
analyzing, by a processing system, the point cloud data by comparing a point of the point cloud data to a corresponding reference point from reference data to determine a distance between the point and the corresponding reference point, wherein the point and the corresponding reference point are associated with the object (Para 50, “…determine a corresponding reference vertex for every template vertex……determine vertex distance between every template vertex and the determined corresponding reference vertex…”) and the reference data is collected when the object is not subjected to the at least one of the load or force;
determining, by the processing system, whether a change to the object occurred responsive to the at least one of the load or force by comparing the distance to a distance threshold (Para 4, 50 “…wherein the determined vertex distance above a predefined vertex distance threshold is indicative of the change…”); and
responsive to determining that the change to the location of the object occurred, displaying a change indicium on a display of the processing system (Para 32 “…graphical user interface to display the change detection results” and Para 51 “An output point-cloud is generated to indicate the change detected… and can be displayed.”),
Bhowmick fails to explicitly teach
and collected during an event when the object is subjected to at least one of a load or force,
and the reference data is collected when the object is not subjected to the at least one of the load or force,
determining whether a change occurred responsive to the at least one of the load or force
wherein the point cloud data is captured by performing a scan using the 3D coordinate measurement device,
wherein the 3D coordinate measurement device:
performs a plurality of rotations about an axis during the scan,
captures a plurality of 3D coordinates of the object during each of the plurality of rotations,
transmits, to the processing system, a first plurality of 3D coordinates of the object captured during a first rotation of the plurality of rotations of the 3D coordinate measurement device, and
transmits, to the processing system, a second plurality of 3D coordinates of the object captured during a second rotation of the plurality of rotations of the 3D coordinate measurement device,
However, Komeichi teaches wherein the point cloud data is captured by performing a scan using the 3D coordinate measurement device (Col 9: lines 43-49, “A distance measuring light is irradiated… and scanned over a total circumference.”),
wherein the 3D coordinate measurement device:
performs a plurality of rotations about an axis during the scan (Col 13: lines 20-21 “The point cloud data is rotated one round (360°) around the vertical axis as the center.”),
captures a plurality of 3D coordinates of the object during each of the plurality of rotations (Col 11: lines 55-59, Col 14: lines 21-25),
transmits, to the processing system (Fig.1 control arithmetic unit 15), a first plurality of 3D coordinates of the object captured during a first rotation of the plurality of rotations of the 3D coordinate measurement device (Col 11: lines 54-55), , and
transmits, to the processing system, a second plurality of 3D coordinates of the object captured during a second rotation of the plurality of rotations of the 3D coordinate measurement device (Col 12: lines 15-23).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to combine the teachings of Bhowmick with Komeichi. Bhowmick teaches analyzing point cloud data to detect changes by comparing distances between corresponding points and reference data, but does not limit how the point cloud data is acquired. Komeichi teaches a laser scanner that acquires point cloud data by rotational scanning and transmits the data to a processing system.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use Komeichi’s laser scanner to acquire the point cloud data used by Bhowmick, as this represents the use of a known and predictable scanning technique to provide suitable input data for Bhowmick’s change-detection processing.
Bhowmick, in view of Komeichi, teaches the processing system displaying the first plurality of 3D coordinates on the display (Bhowmick, para 25 “The data sources … connected to a computing device through a network” and para 32 “…graphical user interface to display the change detection results”. Komeichi discloses transmitting three-dimensional coordinate measurement data acquired by rotational scanning to a control arithmetic unit for processing. Although Komeichi does not explicitly disclose displaying the processed point cloud data, Bhowmick teaches displaying point cloud data and change indicia on a display. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to output the processed point cloud data acquired by Komeichi to a display as taught by Bhowmick in order to visualize the scanned object and monitor changes, which represents a predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions.),
the processing system displaying, on the display, the second plurality of 3D coordinates instead of the first plurality of 3D coordinates (Bhowmick, para 37 “reference point-cloud … template point-cloud acquired at different time instances”. Bhowmick teaches processing and displaying point cloud data and updating the displayed output based on newly analyzed point cloud data. Komeichi teaches acquiring successive pluralities of three-dimensional coordinates during successive rotational scans and transmitting those pluralities to a processing system. Although Komeichi does not explicitly disclose displaying the successive point cloud datasets, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to display the newly acquired point cloud data in place of previously displayed point cloud data as taught by Bhowmick, since displaying updated scan data is a predictable and expected function when monitoring objects using point cloud data.).
Bhowmick, in view of Komeichi, still fails to teach but Gawronek teaches point cloud data is collected during an event when the object is subjected to at least one of a load or force (Page 1, Abstract: TLS measurement was used for a static load test of an old, steel railway bridge. Also, page 4, Section 2.2: the static load test was performed for the span for which a complete point cloud could be registered. So, the railway bridge/span is the object; a static load test is an event where the object is subjected to a load/force; TLS produces point-cloud data.),
the reference data is collected when the object is not subjected to the at least one of the load or force (Page 5, Section 2.2: The bridge span was measured in the unloaded state directly before the static load test.),
determining whether a change occurred responsive to the at least one of the load or force (Page 5, Section 2.2: measurements were performed “to determine values of vertical displacement of specific points of the loaded span measured directly after load was applied and every 15 min. Page 5, §2.3: “The concept of measurement involved three methods of determination of the displacement during the static load test of the bridge, including terrestrial laser scanning (TLS).).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Bhowmick’s point-cloud change-detection method to process point-cloud data collected during a load-testing event, as taught by Gawronek, because Bhowmick already teaches detecting deformation/change in an object or surface by comparing template point-cloud points to corresponding reference points and determining whether a distance exceeds a predefined threshold, while Gawronek teaches that terrestrial laser scanning/point-cloud measurements are used before and during static load testing to determine displacement/deformation of a structure caused by an applied load. Applying Bhowmick’s threshold-based point-cloud comparison to Gawronek’s unloaded and loaded point-cloud measurement data would have predictably allowed the processing system to quantitatively determine whether the applied load caused a change/deformation to the object, while improving robustness of the load-test deformation determination using Bhowmick’s known point-cloud change-detection technique.
Regarding claim 2, Bhowmick, in view of Komeichi and Gawronek, teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the 3D coordinate measurement device transmits the first plurality of 3D coordinates and the second plurality of 3D coordinates to a cloud computing system via network (Bhowmick, para 25 “The data sources may receive the point-cloud sets acquired from a plurality of 3D-scanners such as Kinect® or aerial Light Detection and Ranging (LiDAR) laser scanners or the like. The data sources 106-1 to 106-n may be connected to a computing device 104 through a network 108.”).
Regarding claim 3, Bhowmick, in view of Komeichi and Gawronek, teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the processing system transmits the first plurality of 3D coordinates and the second plurality of 3D coordinates to a cloud computing system (Bhowmick, para 27, 34 “The repository may store the point-clouds … and intermediate processed data”).
Regarding claim 4, Bhowmick, in view of Komeichi and Gawronek, teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the object is a geometric primitive (Para 21, 49-50. Bhowmick discloses representing an object using point cloud data comprising vertices and geometric relationships, which encompasses representing the object as a geometric primitive. Also, under BRI “a geometric primitive” is broad (plane, surface, mesh element, vertex set……………).
Regarding claim 5, Bhowmick, in view of Komeichi and Gawronek, teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the object is a planar surface (Bhowmick, Para 46 “identifying a local reference planar surface represented by the corresponding plurality of neighbor points and a local template planar…”).
Regarding claim 7, Bhowmick, in view of Komeichi and Gawronek, teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the object is a free-form surface ((Bhowmick,para 21, 23, 50. Bhowmick discloses detecting changes in surfaces represented by point cloud data by comparing corresponding vertices of a template point cloud and a reference point cloud and identifying deformed vertices based on a distance threshold. Because Bhowmick represents surface geometry using unconstrained point cloud vertices without limiting the surface to a predefined parametric or analytic form, the disclosed surface representation encompasses free-form surfaces under the broadest reasonable interpretation. See also, para 55).
Regarding claim 8, Bhowmick, in view of Komeichi and Gawronek, teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the distance is selected from the group consisting of a Euclidean distance (Bhowmick,para 50 “…determine vertex distance between every template vertex and the determined corresponding reference vertex”. Bhowmick teaches determining distances between 3D coordinates, which inherently involves Euclidean distance, and the use of alternative distance metrics would have been an obvious mathematical variation.) and a Manhattan distance.
Regarding claim 9, Bhowmick, in view of Komeichi and Gawronek, teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the 3D coordinate measurement device is a laser scanner (Komeichi, , col 3: lines 58-60).
Regarding claim 10, Bhowmick, in view of Komeichi and Gawronek, teaches the method of claim 9, wherein the laser scanner comprises:
a scanner processing system including a scanner controller (Komeichi, Fig. 1, col 7: line 51-col 8: line 15, Komeichi discloses a scanner processing system including a scanner controller in the form of a control arithmetic unit that controls scanning and processing of measurement data.);
a housing (Komeichi, Fig. 1, frame unit 5, col 3: line 61 to col: line 3); and
a 3D scanner disposed within the housing and operably coupled to the scanner processing system (Fig. 1, col 3: line 61 to col: line 3. Komeichi discloses a three-dimensional scanner disposed within the frame (housing) and operably coupled to the scanner processing system.),
the 3D scanner having a light source (Komeichi, Fig. 1, col 5: lines 25-29, istance measuring light emitter 31 is, e.g., a semiconductor laser),
a beam steering unit (Komeichi, Fig. 1, col 5: lines 30-36, scanning mirror 7),
a first angle measuring device (Komeichi, Fig.1, col 4: lines 16-25 horizontal angle detector 14),
a second angle measuring device (Komeichi, Fig.1, col 4: lines 34-36, vertical angle detector 18), and
a light receiver (Komeichi, Fig.1, Col 6: lines 45-49, col 4: lines 34-36, photodetection element 44),
the beam steering unit cooperating with the light source and the light receiver to define a scan area (Komeichi, Fig. 1, col 5: lines 21-36, col 6: lines 34-54. Komeichi discloses that the scanning mirror directs the emitted light across a measurement area and that reflected light is received during scanning.),
the light source and the light receiver configured to cooperate with the scanner processing system to determine a first distance to a first object point based at least in part on a transmitting of a light by the light source and a receiving of a reflected light by the light receiver (Komeichi, Fig. 1, col 5: lines 21-36, col 6: lines 34-54. Komeichi discloses determining a distance based on the emission of distance-measuring light and reception of reflected light under control of the control arithmetic unit.),
the 3D scanner configured to cooperate with the scanner processing system to determine 3D coordinates of the first object point based at least in part on the first distance, a first angle of rotation, and a second angle of rotation (Komeichi, Fig. 1, col 6: lines 55-59).
Claims 11-15, 17- 20 are system claims corresponding to method claims 1-10. They are rejected for the same reasons.
Claims 6, 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bhowmick in view of Komeichi, Gawronek and Denis Wohlfeld (US 20190285404 A1, “Wohlfeld”).
Regarding claim 6, Bhowmick, in view of Komeichi and Gawronek, fails to explicitly teach but Wohlfeld teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the object is a curved surface (Para 60, the surfaces may be curved).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to apply the curved-surface representation taught by Wohlfeld to the point-cloud-based change detection method of Bhowmick because Bhowmick analyzes point cloud data to detect changes in object geometry, while Wohlfeld explicitly teaches that point cloud data may represent curved surfaces. Incorporating curved surface representations into Bhowmick’s framework would allow the same distance-based comparison and thresholding techniques to be applied to objects having curved geometry, which represents a predictable and straightforward extension of point cloud analysis techniques to different surface geometries.
Claims 16 is a system claim corresponding to method claim 6. It is rejected for the same reason.
Conclusion
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
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
Prosecution Insights