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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-4, 6, 8-11, and 13-22 have been considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection necessitated by the applicant’s amendments to the claims.
Information Disclosure Statement
The IDS filed on 12/01/25 has been considered.
Drawings
As previously discussed, the drawings filed on 12/09/22 are accepted.
Examiner’s Note - 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 use the word “means” or “step” but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “position giving means” in claims 1 and 14. In each case, the claims disclose sufficient structure to perform recited functions.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant intends 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 remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
Examiner’s Note - 35 USC § 112
The applicant’s 11/26/25 claim amendments have overcome the previous 112 rejection.
Examiner’s Note - 35 USC § 101
For similar reasons that were given in a previous action, claims 1-4, 6, 8-11, and 13-22 qualify as eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Under step 2A, prong two, the claimed limitations apply any judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine (see MPEP 2106.05(b)). In this case, the particular machine is a survey pole and surveying device.
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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 6, 11, and 14-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kipka (US PgPub 20180100931) in view of Eisenreich et al (US PgPub 20200348133).
With respect to claim 1, Kipka discloses:
A surveying system for measuring the position of a measuring point (abstract states, “The invention relates to a survey system comprising an antenna, a sensor, and a control unit. The antenna is configured for receiving one or more positioning signal … obtaining a positioning measurement based on the positioning signal.” Paragraphs 0003-0006 give more background about how general surveying systems work.), the surveying system comprising
a survey pole with a body having a pointer tip for contacting the measuring point (figure 1, reference 20), and position giving means for making available the coordinative determination of a referenced position (figure 1, reference 10), the position giving means being placed on the body with a defined spatial relationship relative to the tip (figure 1)
a control and evaluation unit for deriving the position of the measuring point at least based on the determined referenced position and on the defined spatial relationship of the position giving means relative to the tip (paragraph 0029 states, “Control unit 40 is configured to obtain (i.e., acquire or receive) the above-referred static state signal from sensor 30, and upon obtaining said static state signal, to obtain a positioning measurement based on the positioning signal(s).”; paragraph 0048 states, “Control unit 40 obstains s12 said cancel command signal from sensor 30 … This embodiment contributes to an automated management of data in the context of registration of survey points, especially in the event that the operator has realized that the previously registered point was incorrect … for example, due to carelessness in the placement of the tip of the survey pole 20.”)
an inertial measurement unit (IMU) comprising IMU sensors (paragraph 0028 states, “Sensor 30 may be, may be part of, or may comprise an inertial navigation system (INS), comprising for example one or more accelerometers (e.g., a micro-electro-mechanical systems (MEMS) accelerometer), and/or one or more gyroscopes … In one embodiment, sensor 30 is an inertial sensor or inertial measurement unit (IMU).”) and being configured to continuously generate IMU data related to at least one of a rotational rate or acceleration of the pole (Generation of IMU data related to a rotational rate or acceleration is suggested by the disclosure of accelerometers and gyroscopes (paragraph 0028). The claimed “continuously” modifier is suggested by paragraph 0033, which states, “For example, the determination that the antenna-carrying apparatus is in a static state may be based on a standard deviation computation of accelerometer data over a period of time (e.g., 250 ms). The accelerometer data my for example be provided at a frequency of 50, 100, 150, or 200 Hz.” The disclosure of accelerometer data “over time” suggests “continuously,” as it is clear that the accelerometer data is not just taken once, at a discrete point in time.)
a motion tracker configured to receive the IMU data and to derive, based on the IMU data and in real time, motions or motion patterns of the survey pole (figures 6-8; paragraph 0031 states, “The survey apparatus comprising antenna 10, sensor 30, and optionally control unit 40, may be connected or connectable, wirelessly or not, to other pieces of equipment, such as for example a hand-held controller, a GNSS receiver (hosting e.g. a real-time kinematic (RTK) engine) …”; paragraph 0044 states, “sensor 30 determines s6 that the antenna-carrying apparatus is no longer static, and sensor 30 then outputs s7 a signal, referred to as ‘motion state signal’, which indicates that the antenna-carrying apparatus is no longer static …”), wherein, if a derived motion or motion pattern corresponds to a defined motion pattern of the survey pole, the surveying system is configured to automatically perform an action associated with the defined motion pattern (paragraphs 0047-0048 state, “sensor 30 determines s10 that the antenna-carrying apparatus has been subject to a motion pattern comprising a predefined motion or a predefined set of motions, such as a gesture or set of gestures performed by the operator holding survey pole 20. Examples of gestures with the pole include: a stirring movement to the right or to the left, a swinging forward, backward or crosswise, a vertical movement up or down, or the like. Sensor 30 then outputs s11 a cancel command signal … This embodiment contributes to an automated management of data in the context of registration of survey points …” Please also note paragraph 0005 of Kipka, which states, “orienting the survey pole vertically or near vertically (better than 5 degrees) over the ground leads to the automatic registration of the current survey point.”),
the action relating to a function of the surveying device (The described gestures of the pole in paragraphs 0047-0048 are broadly construed to relate to a function of the surveying device, as the claimed “action” is not defined. Paragraph 0048 states, “This embodiment contributes to an automated management of data in the context of registration of survey points …” which relates to a function of the surveying device.)
With respect to claim 1, Kipka differs from the claimed invention in that is does not explicitly disclose:
wherein the position giving means comprise a retroreflector
a surveying device configured to measure positional parameters of the retroreflector, positional parameters comprising angles and a distance to the retroreflector, and to derive a referenced position of the retroreflector, the survey pole and the surveying device being configured to establish a remote data connection with each other
With respect to claim 1, Eisenreich et al discloses:
wherein the position giving means comprise a retroreflector (paragraph 0017 states, “The device comprises a position giving means for determination of an actual translational position of the device using an external position reference, for example a GNSS-receiver or a measurable target such as a retroreflector serving as a target for an external measuring device such as a total station.”)
a surveying device configured to measure positional parameters of the retroreflector (paragraph 0017 states, “The device comprises a position giving means for determination of an actual translational position of the device using an external position reference, for example a GNSS-receiver or a measureable target such as a retroreflector, serving as a target for an external measuring device such as a total station.”), positional parameters comprising angles and a distance to the retroreflector, and to derive a referenced position of the retroreflector, the survey pole and the surveying device being configured to establish a remote data connection with each other (paragraph 0056 states, “This position is determined by position surveying by means of the surveying device 8 in which the direction angles and, by means of a run time measurement and/or phase measurement of laser beam L emitted by the surveying device 8, the distance of the reflector 2 is measured relative to the known absolute position of the total station 8 by the station 8. The absolute position of the prism 2 is calculated from angle and distance and absolute position of the surveying device 8.”; paragraph 0093 states, “The user uses the visible laser pointer to aim to the target T from this first device’s position P1 and performs remote point measurements or markings from the first position P1 of the device 1.”; paragraph 0044 states, “measurements of remote points and/or points further away than the typical pole length (2 m) possible …”)
With respect to claim 1, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Eisenreich et al into the invention of Kipka. The motivation for the skilled artisan in doing so is to gain the benefit of giving a positioning target for a measuring device, such as a total station, so that accurate positioning measurements can be made.
With respect to claim 2, Kipka, as modified, discloses:
wherein the motion tracker is configured to generate motion data regarding derived motions or motion patterns and to provide the motion data to the control and evaluation unit (Kipka figures 6-8; Kipka paragraph 0044 states, “Control unit 40 obtains s8 the motion state signal from sensor 30 …”)
and the control and evaluation unit is configured to determine, based on the motion data, whether a derived motion or motion pattern corresponds to one of a plurality of defined motion patterns, and to issue a command to perform the action associated with the determined defined motion pattern to a unit or device of the surveying system, the action associated with the determined defined motion pattern relating to a function of said unit or device (Kipka paragraphs 0047-0048; As seen in the disclosure, if a certain motion pattern is found, then a corresponding action (i.e. a “cancel command signal”) is issued, and the control unit determines how the signal is implemented. Paragraph 0048 states, “control unit 40 performs s13 one of the following operations …”)
With respect to claim 3, Kipka, as modified, discloses:
comprising a database comprising a plurality of different defined motion patterns of the survey pole, each defined motion pattern being associated with an action of the surveying system (suggested by Kipka paragraph 0047, which states, “a motion pattern comprising a predefined motion or a predefines set of motions, such as a gesture or set of gestures … Examples of gestures with the pole include: a stirring movement … a swinging forward, backward or crosswise, a vertical movement up or down, or the like …”; The existence of a set of predetermined gestures suggests a database.)
With respect to claim 4, Kipka, as modified, discloses:
at least one defined motion pattern is a user-defined motion pattern, and the action associated with the user-defined motion pattern is a user-defined workflow of the surveying system (Kipka paragraph 0031 states, “The survey apparatus comprising antenna 10 and survey pole 20 may also comprise various other elements, such as any one of, or any combination of … h) one or more input and/or output user interfaces for providing information to and receiving information from an operator …” It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the “predefined” operations of Kipka would be “user-defined” via the disclosed user interfaces. One of ordinary skill in the art recognizes that the operations must be defined somehow, and it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to allow the user of the system/method to define the operations themselves, so as to allow for a more customized experience based on user needs.)
the system is configured to run, upon selection by a user, a definition process, wherein the control and evaluation unit is configured to determine, based on motion data received during the definition process, the user-defined motion pattern and to associate the determined user-defined motion pattern to the user-selected workflow (obvious in view of total teachings of Kipka; As discussed above, Kipka associates a predefined motion to a predefined workflow. Kipka also separately discloses the presence of user interfaces that allow users to communicate information. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to allow the “predefined” elements to be user-defined.)
With respect to claim 6, Kipka, as modified, discloses:
the motion tracker is configured to generate motion data regarding derived motions or motion patterns and to provide the motion data to the control and evaluation unit (Kipka paragraphs 0047-0048)
the control and evaluation unit is configured to determine, based on the motion data, whether a determined motion corresponds to one of the defined motion patterns (Kipka paragraphs 0047-0048)
and configured to issue a command to perform the action associated with this defined motion pattern to the surveying device (Kipka paragraphs 0047-0048)
and the control and evaluation unit is configured to receive the motion data via the remote data connection or to issue the command to the surveying device via the remote data connection (Kipka figure 1; see “remote” teachings discussed above; see also “wireless” teachings of paragraphs Kipka 0024 and 0031)
With respect to claim 11, Kipka, as modified, discloses:
wherein the inertial measurement unit: is integrated in the body of the pole or part of a mobile device that is attached to the pole, wherein the pole comprises a receptacle for accepting the mobile device (Figure 1 and paragraph 0028)
With respect to claim 14, Kipka et al discloses:
A computer-implemented method for controlling a surveying system, the surveying system (abstract states, “The invention relates to a survey system comprising an antenna, a sensor, and a control unit … The invention also relates to a method for operating such a system, and to computer programs and computer program products for carrying out such a method.”) comprising:
a survey pole with a body having a pointer tip for contacting a measuring point, and position giving means for making available the coordinative determination of a referenced position, the position giving means being placed on the body with a defined spatial relationship relative to the tip (see rejection of similar limitation in claim 1 above)
a control and evaluation unit for deriving a position of a measuring point at least based on the determined referenced position and on the defined spatial relationship of the position giving means relative to the tip (see rejection of similar limitation in claim 1 above)
and an inertial measurement unit (IMU), being provided on the survey pole, comprising IMU sensors including accelerometers and gyroscopes, and being configured to continuously generate IMU data (paragraph 0028)
the method comprising deriving, based on the continuously generated IMU data and in real time, motions or motion patterns of the survey pole (paragraphs 0031, 0033, and 0047-0048)
determining whether a derived motion or motion pattern corresponds to one of a plurality of pre-defined motion patterns, an action for at least one unit or device of the surveying system being associated with each pre-defined motion pattern (paragraphs 0047-0048)
and issuing a command to perform the action associated with the determined pre-defined motion pattern to the respective unit or device of the surveying system (paragraphs 0047-0048)
wherein: at least a first action that is associated with a first pre-defined motion pattern relates to a function of the surveying device (see rejection of similar limitation in claim 1 above)
With respect to claim 14, Kipka differs from the claimed invention in that it does not explicitly disclose:
wherein the position giving means comprise a retroreflector
a surveying device configured to measure positional parameters of the retroreflector, positional parameters comprising angles and a distance to the retroreflector, and to derive a referenced position of the retroreflector, the survey pole and the surveying device being configured to establish a remote data connection with each other
if the derived motion or motion pattern corresponds to the first pre-defined motion pattern, a command to perform the first action is sent to the surveying device via the remote data connection
With respect to claim 14, Eisenreich et al discloses:
wherein the position giving means comprise a retroreflector (see rejection of similar limitation in claim 1 above)
a surveying device configured to measure positional parameters of the retroreflector, positional parameters comprising angles and a distance to the retroreflector, and to derive a referenced position of the retroreflector, the survey pole and the surveying device being configured to establish a remote data connection with each other (see rejection of similar limitation in claim 1 above)
if the derived motion or motion pattern corresponds to the first pre-defined motion pattern, a command to perform the first action is sent to the surveying device via the remote data connection (obvious in view of combination; Kipka discloses motion/motion pattern. Eisenreich et al discloses remote data connection.)
With respect to claim 14, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Eisenreich et al into the invention of Kipka. The motivation for the skilled artisan in doing so is to gain the benefit of giving a positioning target for a measuring device, such as a total station, so that accurate positioning measurements can be made.
With respect to claim 15, Kipka, as modified, discloses:
A computer programme product comprising program code which is stored on a non-transitory machine-readable medium, and having computer-executable instructions for performing, when executed in a surveying system, the method according to claim 14 (abstract of Kipka states, “The invention also relates to a method for operating such a system, and to computer programs and computer program products for carrying out such a method.”)
With respect to claim 16, Kipka discloses:
A surveying system for measuring the position of a measuring point (see rejection of claim 1 above)
a survey pole with a body having a pointer tip for contacting the measuring point (see rejection of claim 1 above)
a control and evaluation unit for deriving the position of the measuring point at least based on the positional parameters and on the defined spatial relationship of the retroreflector relative to the tip (see rejection of claim 1 above)
an inertial measurement unit (IMU) comprising IMU sensors and being configured to continuously generate IMU data related to at least one of a rotational rate or acceleration of the pole (see rejection of claim 1 above)
a motion tracker configured to receive the IMU data and to derive, based on the IMU data and in real time, motions or motion patterns of the survey pole (see rejection of claim 1 above)
With respect to claim 16, Kipka differs from the claimed invention in that is does not explicitly disclose:
a retroreflector placed on the body with a defined spatial relationship relative to the tip
a surveying device configured to measure positional parameters of the retroreflector, the positional parameters comprising angles and a distance to the retroreflector, and to derive a referenced position of the retroreflector
wherein deriving motions or motion patterns comprises deriving a recumbent or reclined position of the survey pole and at least one of an upright position of the survey pole and a movement of the survey pole from the recumbent or reclined position to the upright position
wherein, if a derived motion or motion pattern corresponds to a defined pick-up motion pattern of the survey pole in which the survey pole is moved from a recumbent or reclined position into an upright position, the surveying device is configured to automatically perform a search for the retroreflector
With respect to claim 16, the following limitation(s) is/are obvious in view of the total teachings of Kipka:
wherein deriving motions or motion patterns comprises deriving a recumbent or reclined position of the survey pole and at least one of an upright position of the survey pole and a movement of the survey pole from the recumbent or reclined position to the upright position (Although Kipka does not use the terms “recumbent” and “reclined”, it does disclose various “tilt” scenarios, such as a “Lift and Tilt” mode (paragraph 0005) and tilted measurements (paragraphs 0035-0041). The claimed limitation is obvious in view of the motion pattern and tilt teachings of Kipka.
With respect to claim 16, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Kipka. The motivation for the skilled artisan in doing so is to gain the benefit of accounting for various motions and positions of a survey pole, including positions where it may be tilted or upright.
With respect to claim 16, Eisenreich et al discloses:
a retroreflector placed on the body with a defined spatial relationship relative to the tip (see rejection of claim 1 above)
a surveying device configured to measure positional parameters of the retroreflector, the positional parameters comprising angles and a distance to the retroreflector, and to derive a referenced position of the retroreflector (see rejection of claim 1 above)
wherein, if a derived motion or motion pattern corresponds to a defined pick-up motion pattern of the survey pole in which the survey pole is moved from a recumbent or reclined position into an upright position, the surveying device is configured to automatically perform a search for the retroreflector (obvious in view of combination; Kipka discloses various motion patterns and positions (such as various levels of tilt, as discussed above). Eisenreich et al discloses automated search. Paragraph 0005 of Eisenreich et al states, “In order to enable geodetic surveying by a user on his own, some total stations according to the prior art have means for mechanizing the target optical unit, for automated target search and tracking …”)
With respect to claim 16, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Eisenreich et al into the invention of Kipka. The motivation for the skilled artisan in doing so is to gain the benefit of giving a positioning target for a measuring device, such as a total station, so that accurate positioning measurements can be made.
With respect to claim 17, Kipka, as modified, discloses:
the motion tracker is configured to generate motion data regarding derived motions or motion patterns and to provide the motion data to the control and evaluation unit (see rejection of claim 2 above)
the control and evaluation unit is configured to determine, based on the motion data, whether a determined motion corresponds to the defined pick-up motion pattern (see rejection of claim 2 above), and configured to issue a command to perform the search for the retroreflector to the surveying device (obvious in view of combination; Eisenreich discloses retroreflector and automated target search, as discussed above.)
With respect to claim 18, Kipka, as modified, discloses:
the survey pole and the surveying device are configured to establish a remote data connection with each other (see rejection of claim 1 above)
the control and evaluation unit is configured to receive the motion data via the remote data connection or to issue the command to the surveying device via the remote data connection (obvious in view of combination)
With respect to claim 19, Kipka, as modified, discloses:
wherein the control and evaluation unit comprises the database or has access to the database (see database rationale given with respect to claim 3 above)
With respect to claim 20, Kipka, as modified, discloses:
wherein the motion tracker is further configured to determine inertial attitude data, inertial position data and a velocity as part of the motion data (Kipka paragraphs 0035-0036 disclose attitude and position; Eisenreich paragraphs 0025, 0066, and 0087 disclose velocity)
With respect to claim 21, Kipka, as modified, discloses:
wherein the motion tracker is further configured to determine a yaw angle, a pitch angle and a role angle of the survey pole as part of the motion data (obvious in view of combination; Kipka paragraph 0035 states, “thanks to the knowledge of the attitude (roll, pitch and yaw).”)
With respect to claim 22, Kipka, as modified, discloses:
wherein the motion tracker is provided at the survey pole and comprises the IMU (Kipka paragraph 0028)
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kipka (US PgPub 20180100931) in view of Eisenreich et al (US PgPub 20200348133), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Dusha (US PgPub 20150268045).
With respect to claim 8, Kipka, as modified, discloses:
The surveying system according to claim 1 (as applied to claim 1 above)
With respect to claim 8, Kipka, as modified, differs from the claimed invention in that it does not explicitly disclose:
wherein the motion tracker is configured to determine at least inertial velocity data as part of the motion data
With respect to claim 8, Dusha discloses:
wherein the motion tracker is configured to determine at least inertial velocity data as part of the motion data (Dusha paragraph 0061 states, “In another preferred embodiment the IMU-processing means are configured for determining inertial position data and inertial attitude data as part of the inertial state data, particularly also inertial velocity data and IMU-sensor error parameters.”; see also paragraph 0079)
With respect to claim 8, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Dusha into the invention of modified Kipka. The motivation for the skilled artisan in doing so is to gain the benefit of aiding in accurate and reliable measurements.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kipka (US PgPub 20180100931) in view of Eisenreich et al (US PgPub 20200348133), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Rudow et al (US PgPub 20150009067).
With respect to claim 9, Kipka, as modified, discloses:
The surveying system according to claim 1 (as applied to claim 1 above)
With respect to claim 9, Kipka, as modified, differs from the claimed invention in that it does not explicitly disclose:
wherein the system is configured to establish a data connection with a remote server computer and to provide data to the remote server computer
to detect typical user behaviour from the provided data and to send corresponding data to the remote server computer
wherein the sent data is dedicated to update pre-defined motion patterns stored at the remote server computer
and to receive updated pre-defined motion patterns from the remote server computer
wherein the provided data and the sent data comprise at least one of IMU data and motion data, the motion data being generated by the motion tracker
With respect to claim 9, Rudow et al discloses:
wherein the system is configured to establish a data connection with a remote server computer and to provide data to the remote server computer (paragraph 0063 of Rudow et al states, “A network RTK system operated in real time requires each GNSS reference receiver to transmit its observables to a network server computer that computes and transmits the corrections and other relevant data to the GNSS handheld wireless device 201’s GNSS receiver.” Please note that Kipka does teach hosting a real-time kinematic (RTK) engine, but it does not detail the “server.” Rudow discloses data connection with a network server.)
to detect typical user behaviour from the provided data and to send corresponding data to the remote server computer (obvious in view of combination; Kipka discloses network connection devices (paragraph 0056). Rudow discloses server.)
wherein the sent data is dedicated to update pre-defined motion patterns stored at the remote server computer (obvious in view of combination; Rudow paragraph 0026 states, “Each time an intentional user gesture is detected, it is timestamped … Thus, the user gesture is noted to indicate that a user desires a particular operation to be performed …”; Rudow paragraph 0072 states, “(…) is interpreted as a positive indication of a user gesture. This user gesture again defines, in gesture library 113, that a data collection operation of GNSS data from GNSS receiver 102 is to be performed.” Updating server data based on user definitions and actions would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, as it allows for the system to respond to intentional user behavior.)
and to receive updated pre-defined motion patterns from the remote server computer (obvious in view of combination; transmitting and receiving data with respect to user motion behavior would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. Both Kipka and Rudow teach motion patterns/gestures. Both Kipka and Rudow teach remote data processing. Rudow specifies “server.”)
wherein the provided data and the sent data comprise at least one of IMU data and motion data, the motion data being generated by the motion tracker (obvious in view of combination; As discussed above, Kipka discloses IMU and motion data.)
With respect to claim 9, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Rudow et al into the invention of modified Kipka et al. The motivation for the skilled artisan in doing so is to gain the benefit of real-time tracking and data processing of user behavior.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kipka (US PgPub 20180100931) and Eisenreich et al (US PgPub 20200348133), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Best et al (US PgPub 20210190969).
With respect to claim 10, Kipka et al, as modified, discloses:
The surveying system according to claim 1 (as applied to claim 1 above)
With respect to claim 10, Kipka et al, as modified, differs from the claimed invention in that is does not explicitly disclose:
wherein the motion tracker uses a machine-learning based algorithm for identifying motions or motion patterns
With respect to claim 10, Best et al discloses:
wherein the motion tracker uses a machine-learning based algorithm for identifying motions or motion patterns (paragraph 0058 states, “Operation of the system 200 is a steady state functioning … operation of the system 200 continuously updates position and/or orientation based on available measurements and error ranges (e.g., and inputting combining measurements and error ranges using a Kalman filter, a particle filter, a machine learning network, or other sensor fusion mechanism.” Best is being applied to demonstrate the principle of applying machine learning in the context of systems that comprise a survey pole.)
With respect to claim 10, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Best et al into the invention of modified Kipka. The motivation for the skilled artisan in doing so is to gain the benefit of greater efficiency and automation capability for complex tasks.
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kipka (US PgPub 20180100931) in view of Eisenreich et al (US PgPub 20200348133), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Scherzinger (US PgPub 20030114984).
With respect to claim 13, Kipka, as modified, discloses:
The surveying system according to claim 1 (as applied to claim 1 above)
With respect to claim 13, Kipka, as modified, differs from the claimed invention in that it does not explicitly disclose:
wherein the pointer tip is configured for providing a punch functionality for marking a point of an object, particularly the measuring point, the pointer tip comprising a spring that is configured and arranged so that it is compressed when the pointer tip is pushed onto the point of the object and released when a predefined amount of compression has been reached
and the defined motion patterns comprise a punch-motion pattern, in which the survey pole is pushed with the pointer tip onto a point of the object and the spring is released
wherein the action associated with the punch-motion pattern comprises performing a measurement for deriving the position of the marked point as the measuring point
With respect to claim 13, Scherzinger discloses:
wherein the pointer tip is configured for providing a punch functionality for marking a point of an object, particularly the measuring point, the pointer tip comprising a spring that is configured and arranged so that it is compressed when the pointer tip is pushed onto the point of the object and released when a predefined amount of compression has been reached (paragraph 0008 states, “A Zero velocity UPDate (ZUPD) switch is coupled to the ground spike 58 at the lower end of the staff and is arranged to transfer when the ground spike 58 touches the ground. A plunger must be arranged to force or compress the ZUPD switch 94 slightly as the ground spike contacts the ground.”; paragraph 0056 discloses plunger spring 96, and paragraph 0057 states, “The plunger spring 96 exerts a force on the plunger 98 that pushes the plunger to its normally extended position.”; see also paragraph 0118. Please also note that the applicant’s specification (page 12, line 24 and page 15, line 16) also discloses zero velocity update.)
and the defined motion patterns comprise a punch-motion pattern, in which the survey pole is pushed with the pointer tip onto a point of the object and the spring is released (obvious in view of combination; Scherzinger figure 2 discloses a pole assembly similar to both Kipka and the applicant’s disclosed figures 1A-1B. Kipka discloses motion tracking of the pole. Scherzinger gives extra details about the spring action in the survey pole tip, but it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to apply the motion tracking principles of Kipka to other types of pole motion, including that caused by the claimed punch-motion pattern; the structure that allows for the punch-motion pattern is taught by Kipka, as modified by Scherzinger.)
wherein the action associated with the punch-motion pattern comprises performing a measurement for deriving the position of the marked point as the measuring point (obvious in view of combination; paragraph 0005 of Scherzinger states, “The surveyor walks to each point to be surveyed, places the spike at the bottom end of the point, and either records a position computed by the receiver or ‘occupies’ the point for a period of time during which the receiver records data for post-survey processing.” The spike action is used for measuring point purposes, and the ZUPD switch that is activated by the spring helps to control position drift, which aids in more accurate measurements (Scherzinger paragraphs 0003 and 0068).)
With respect to claim 13, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Scherzinger into the invention of modified Kipka. The motivation for the skilled artisan in doing so is to gain the benefit of aiding in more accurate measurements by helping to control drift errors.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Wiklund (US Pat 5229828) discloses an arrangement for establishing or defining the position of a measuring point.
Malkoc et al (US PgPub 20210063150) discloses a surveying instrument.
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LEONARD S LIANG whose telephone number is (571)272-2148. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10:00 AM - 7 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, ARLEEN M VAZQUEZ can be reached at (571)272-2619. 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.
/LEONARD S LIANG/Examiner, Art Unit 2857 04/20/26
/ARLEEN M VAZQUEZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2857
Prosecution Insights