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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDSs) submitted on 06/07/2023 & 07/12/2023 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the IDSs have been considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: 114A and 116A in Para. [0051] of the specification.
Appropriate correction is required.
If the reference sign(s) 114A and 116A are to remain in the specification, corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application.
In addition, the drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. FIGS. 4A and 4B appear to show a “tone generator 406”, Para. [0071] of specification recites “a target 404 comprised of a base member having a retaining element is coupled near the area where the sound measurements are to be performed. The retaining element is used to couple a tone generator 406 to the base member” (emphasis added) and Para. [0072] of the specification recites “[i]n block 414, after detecting the tone generator 406 in the image 413, the tone generator 406 is removed and replaced with a marker, such as a spherical photogrammetry marker or checkerboard marker for example” (emphasis added).
However, FIGS. 4A-4C, which are the only drawings that appear to show the tone generator, do not appear to show “removing the marker from the retaining element and coupling the tone generator to the retaining element prior to acquiring the third plurality of 3D coordinates; and deactivating the tone generator prior to acquiring the fourth plurality of 3D coordinates” of claims 9, which depends from and incorporates claim 8. Rather, Paras. [0071] & [0072] of the specification appear to indicate “removing the tone generator 404 [target 404] and coupling the marker ”, while FIGS. 4A & 4B appear to show “removing the circular pattern 412 [target 404] ”.
Therefore, the “removal of the tone generator” and “marker” of claims 9 and 18 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). Identifying indicia such as the application number (see 37 CFR 1.84(c)) should be written on the drawings in the front (not the back) of each sheet. If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
The last “sentence” of Paragraph [0003] of the specification is missing an ending punctuation mark (e.g., a period).
Para. [0004] should be amended to include proper English grammar. For example, Para. [0004] could be amended to recite “Sensors that measure …” and “… acquires a picture or pictures (two-dimensions) …”.
Para. [0005] should be amended to include proper English grammar. For example, Para. [0005] could be amended to recite “… due to differences in how the sensor …”.
Para. [0044] should be amended to replace “such an temperature” with “such as [[an]] temperature”.
Para. [0052] should be amended to replace “maybe” with “may be”.
Appropriate correction is required.
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Objections
Claim 10 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 10 recites “configured to optically measuring …” but should rather recite “configured to optically measure …”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Claims 9 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
MPEP 2161.01(I) recites “It is not enough that one skilled in the art could write a program to achieve the claimed function because the specification must explain how the inventor intends to achieve the claimed function to satisfy the written description requirement. See, e.g., Vasudevan Software, Inc. v. MicroStrategy, Inc., 782 F.3d 671, 681-683, 114 USPQ2d 1349, 1356, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (reversing and remanding the district court’s grant of summary judgment of invalidity for lack of adequate written description where there were genuine issues of material fact regarding "whether the specification show[ed] possession by the inventor of how accessing disparate databases is achieved").” (emphasis added).
Claim 9 recites the limitation “removing the marker from the retaining element and coupling the tone generator to the retaining element prior to acquiring the third plurality of 3D coordinates; and deactivating the tone generator prior to acquiring the fourth plurality of 3D coordinates”. The originally-filed specification does not appear to describe how the marker is removed from the retaining element and a tone generator is coupled to the same retaining element prior to acquiring the third plurality of 3D coordinates. Rather, FIGS. 4A and 4B appear to show a “tone generator 406”, Para. [0071] of specification recites “a target 404 comprised of a base member having a retaining element is coupled near the area where the sound measurements are to be performed. The retaining element is used to couple a tone generator 406 to the base member” (emphasis added) and Para. [0072] of the specification recites “[i]n block 414, after detecting the tone generator 406 in the image 413, the tone generator 406 is removed and replaced with a marker, such as a spherical photogrammetry marker or checkerboard marker for example” (emphasis added).
Claims 9 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention.
Regarding claim 9, the claimed “removing the marker from the retaining element and coupling the tone generator to the retaining element prior to acquiring the third plurality of 3D coordinates; and deactivating the tone generator prior to acquiring the fourth plurality of 3D coordinates” is non-enabling. As discussed above, the specification does not enable one skilled in the art to make or use the invention. It is not clear how the marker is removed from the retaining element and a tone generator is coupled to the same retaining element prior to acquiring the third plurality of 3D coordinates (because the 3D coordinates appear to be based on using the tone generator and acoustic/sound camera).
Claim 18 has substantially similar limitations as recited in claim 9; therefore, it is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) for the same reasons.
(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.
Claims 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the second measurement device being operably disposed in a fixed relationship to the target” (emphasis added). The specification, at Para. [0060], indicates GPR system 200 includes a measurement head 227 (FIG. 2C) “that is positioned in a fixed relationship to the ground 229” and “passes over the target”. However, claim 1 recites “fixed relationship to the target”. It is not clear how the measurement head can simultaneously be in a fixed (stationary) relationship with the target while moving (passing) over the target.
Claim 10 has substantially similar limitations as recited in claim 1; therefore, it is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) for the same reasons.
In addition, Claim 3 recites “the ground penetrating radar is moved over the target” and “the fixed relationship [between the second measurement device and the target] is the distance”, which is unclear. It is not clear whether the distance is fixed (between the second measurement device and the target) or the second measurement device (ground penetrating radar) moves over the target.
Claim 12 has substantially similar limitations as recited in claim 3; therefore, it is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) for the same reasons.
Claims 2-9 and 11-18 are also rejected under the same rationale since these claims inherit the respective deficiencies of at least one of claims 1, 3, 10 and 12, without curing the respective deficiencies of claims 1, 3, 10 and 12.
For compact prosecution, Examiner has made an interpretation (as best understood), which is represented within the mapping of the claims under the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection. Examiner is interpreting this limitation based on the detailed description (Para. [0060] of specification) to mean fixed relationship to ground.
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 101
35 U.S.C. § 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
The following is an analysis based on the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (2019 PEG).
To determine if a claim is directed to patent ineligible subject matter, the Court has guided the Office to apply the Alice/Mayo test, which requires:
1. Determining if the claim falls within a statutory category;
2A. Determining if the claim is directed to a patent ineligible judicial exception consisting of a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or abstract idea; and
2B. If the claim is directed to a judicial exception, determining if the claim recites limitations or elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
(See MPEP 2106).
Claims 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed inventions are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite a mental process. See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Claims 1-18 Step 1, Statutory Category?:
Yes: Claims 1-18 are directed to the statutory category of a process. See MPEP § 2106.03.
Step 2A:
Step 2A is a two-prong inquiry. See MPEP § 2106.04(II)(A). Under the first prong, examiners evaluate whether a law of nature, natural phenomenon, or abstract idea is set forth or described in the claim. Abstract ideas include mathematical concepts, certain methods of organizing human activity, and mental processes. See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2). The second prong is an inquiry into whether the claim integrates a judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP § 2106.04(d).
Claim 1 Step 2A Prong One: Does the Claim Recite a Judicial Exception?
For the sake of identifying the abstract ideas, a copy of the claim is provided below. The limitations of the claims that describe abstract ideas are bolded.
A method for generating a three-dimensional (3D) model of an environment, the method comprising:
acquiring a first plurality of 3D coordinates of surfaces in the environment in a first coordinate frame of reference using a first measurement device, the first plurality of 3D coordinates including at least one subset of 3D coordinates of a target, the first measurement device optically measuring the plurality of 3D coordinates;
acquiring a second plurality of 3D coordinates of the environment in a second frame of reference using a second measurement device, the second plurality of 3D coordinates including at least one physical parameter, the second measurement device being operably disposed in a fixed relationship to the target; and
registering the second plurality of 3D coordinates with the first plurality of 3D coordinates in the first coordinate frame of reference based at least in part on the at least one subset of 3D coordinates and the fixed relationship.
The limitations “registering the second plurality of 3D coordinates with the first plurality of 3D coordinates in the first coordinate frame of reference based at least in part on the at least one subset of 3D coordinates and the fixed relationship” are abstract ideas because they are directed to mental processes, observations, evaluations, judgments, and/or opinions. The limitations, as drafted and under broadest reasonable interpretation, “can be performed in the human mind or by a human using a pen and paper”. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III). For example, a human could record (register), with pen and paper, two common sets of 3D coordinates (e.g., (X, Y, Z)) based on a fixed relationship with a target. In addition, Applicant’s specification, at Para. [0048], indicates: “combining of the laser scanner measurements and the other measurement devices is at best a labor intense and manual process” (emphasis added).
Claim 1 Step 2A Prong Two: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception/Abstract idea into practical application?
Under Step 2A Prong Two, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional claim limitations outside of the abstract idea only present mere instructions to apply an exception, generally link the use of the judicial exception to the technological environment, or insignificant extra-solution activity. In particular, the claim recites the additional limitations of:
• “for generating a three-dimensional (3D) model of an environment” (general field of use or technological environment – see MPEP 2106.04(d) referencing MPEP 2106.05(h); these limitations can be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exception to the technological environment of 3D modeling (see MPEP 2106.05(h)). Moreover, when reading the preamble in the context of the entire claim, the recitation is not limiting because the body of the claim describes a complete invention and the language recited solely in the preamble does not provide any distinct definition of any of the claimed invention’s limitations. Thus, the preamble of the claim(s) is not considered a limitation and is of no significance to claim construction. See Pitney Bowes, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 182 F.3d 1298, 1305, 51 USPQ2d 1161, 1165 (Fed. Cir. 1999). See MPEP § 2111.02.
• “acquiring a first plurality of 3D coordinates of surfaces in the environment in a first coordinate frame of reference using a first measurement device, the first plurality of 3D coordinates including at least one subset of 3D coordinates of a target, the first measurement device optically measuring the plurality of 3D coordinates” and “acquiring a second plurality of 3D coordinates of the environment in a second frame of reference using a second measurement device, the second plurality of 3D coordinates including at least one physical parameter, the second measurement device being operably disposed in a fixed relationship to the target” (insignificant extra-solution activity – mere data gathering – See MPEP 2106.04(d) referencing MPEP 2106.05(g); this limitation can be viewed as nothing more than mere data gathering in conjunction with the abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Claim 1 Step 2B: Do the additional elements, considered individually and in combination, amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
The Examiner must consider whether each claim limitation individually or as an ordered combination amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. This analysis includes determining whether an inventive concept is furnished by an element or a combination of elements that are beyond the judicial exception. For limitations that were categorized as “apply it” or generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use, the analysis is the same.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As explained above, there are two types of additional elements. The first type of additional element is “for generating a three-dimensional (3D) model of an environment”, which is at best viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exception to the technological environment of 3D modeling. For the claim limitations that generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, the claim limitations do not meaningfully limit the claim because the claim limitations employ generic computer functions to execute an abstract idea, even when limiting the use of the idea to one particular environment, and does not add significantly more, similar to how limiting the abstract idea in Flook to petrochemical and oil-refining industries was insufficient. See MPEP 2106.05(h). Moreover, as discussed above, the preamble of the claim(s) is not considered a limitation and is of no significance to claim construction. See Pitney Bowes, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 182 F.3d 1298, 1305, 51 USPQ2d 1161, 1165 (Fed. Cir. 1999). See MPEP § 2111.02.
The second type of additional elements (“acquiring a first plurality of 3D coordinates of surfaces” and “acquiring a second plurality of 3D coordinates of the environment”), as explained previously, are insignificant extra-solution activity (mere data inputting/gathering). These recitations are recited at a high level of generality, and are also well-known. These limitations therefore remain insignificant extra-solution activity even upon reconsideration. Thus, these limitations do not amount to significantly more.
Even when considered in combination, these additional elements represent mere instructions to apply an exception and/or data gathering, which do not provide an inventive concept. The claims do not include any additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Considering the claim limitations as an ordered combination, claim 1 does not include significantly more than the abstract idea. The claim 1 is not patent subject matter eligible. Dependent claims 2-9 are further addressed below after addressing each independent claim.
Claim 10 Step 2A Prong One: Does the Claim Recite a Judicial Exception?
For the sake of identifying the abstract ideas, a copy of the claim is provided below. The limitations of the claims that describe abstract ideas are bolded.
A method for generating a three-dimensional (3D) model of an environment, the method comprising:
providing a first measurement device configured to optically measuring a plurality of 3D coordinates;
acquiring the first plurality of 3D coordinates in a first coordinate frame of reference using the first measurement device, the first plurality of 3D coordinates including at least one subset of 3D coordinates of a target;
providing a second measurement device configured to measure a second plurality of 3D coordinates that include at least one physical parameter;
disposing the second measurement device in a fixed relationship to the target;
acquiring the second plurality of 3D coordinates in a second frame of reference using the second measurement device; and
registering the second plurality of 3D coordinates with the first plurality of 3D coordinates in the first coordinate frame of reference based at least in part on the at least one subset of 3D coordinates and the fixed relationship.
The limitations “registering the second plurality of 3D coordinates with the first plurality of 3D coordinates in the first coordinate frame of reference based at least in part on the at least one subset of 3D coordinates and the fixed relationship” are abstract ideas because they are directed to mental processes, observations, evaluations, judgments, and/or opinions. The limitations, as drafted and under broadest reasonable interpretation, “can be performed in the human mind or by a human using a pen and paper”. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III). For example, a human could record (register), with pen and paper, two common sets of 3D coordinates (e.g., (X, Y, Z)) based on a fixed relationship with a target. In addition, Applicant’s specification, at Para. [0048], indicates: “combining of the laser scanner measurements and the other measurement devices is at best a labor intense and manual process” (emphasis added).
Claim 10 Step 2A Prong Two: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception/Abstract idea into practical application?
Under Step 2A Prong Two, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional claim limitations outside of the abstract idea only present mere instructions to apply an exception, generally link the use of the judicial exception to the technological environment, or insignificant extra-solution activity. In particular, the claim recites the additional limitations of:
• “for generating a three-dimensional (3D) model of an environment” (general field of use or technological environment – see MPEP 2106.04(d) referencing MPEP 2106.05(h); these limitations can be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exception to the technological environment of 3D modeling (see MPEP 2106.05(h)). Moreover, when reading the preamble in the context of the entire claim, the recitation is not limiting because the body of the claim describes a complete invention and the language recited solely in the preamble does not provide any distinct definition of any of the claimed invention’s limitations. Thus, the preamble of the claim(s) is not considered a limitation and is of no significance to claim construction. See Pitney Bowes, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 182 F.3d 1298, 1305, 51 USPQ2d 1161, 1165 (Fed. Cir. 1999). See MPEP § 2111.02.
• “providing a first measurement device configured to optically measuring a plurality of 3D coordinates”, “acquiring the first plurality of 3D coordinates in a first coordinate frame of reference using the first measurement device, the first plurality of 3D coordinates including at least one subset of 3D coordinates of a target”, “providing a second measurement device configured to measure a second plurality of 3D coordinates that include at least one physical parameter”, “disposing the second measurement device in a fixed relationship to the target” and “acquiring the second plurality of 3D coordinates in a second frame of reference using the second measurement device” (insignificant extra-solution activity – mere data gathering – See MPEP 2106.04(d) referencing MPEP 2106.05(g); this limitation can be viewed as nothing more than mere data gathering in conjunction with the abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Claim 10 Step 2B: Do the additional elements, considered individually and in combination, amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
The Examiner must consider whether each claim limitation individually or as an ordered combination amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. This analysis includes determining whether an inventive concept is furnished by an element or a combination of elements that are beyond the judicial exception. For limitations that were categorized as “apply it” or generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use, the analysis is the same.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As explained above, there are two types of additional elements. The first type of additional element is “for generating a three-dimensional (3D) model of an environment”, which is at best viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exception to the technological environment of 3D modeling. For the claim limitations that generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, the claim limitations do not meaningfully limit the claim because the claim limitations employ generic computer functions to execute an abstract idea, even when limiting the use of the idea to one particular environment, and does not add significantly more, similar to how limiting the abstract idea in Flook to petrochemical and oil-refining industries was insufficient. See MPEP 2106.05(h). Moreover, as discussed above, the preamble of the claim(s) is not considered a limitation and is of no significance to claim construction. See Pitney Bowes, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 182 F.3d 1298, 1305, 51 USPQ2d 1161, 1165 (Fed. Cir. 1999). See MPEP § 2111.02.
The second type of additional elements (“providing a first measurement device configured to optically measuring …”, “acquiring the first plurality of 3D coordinates …”, “providing a second measurement device configured to measure”, “disposing the second measurement device in a fixed relationship to the target” and “acquiring the second plurality of 3D coordinates”), as explained previously, are insignificant extra-solution activity (mere data inputting/gathering). These recitations are recited at a high level of generality, and are also well-known. These limitations therefore remain insignificant extra-solution activity even upon reconsideration. Thus, these limitations do not amount to significantly more.
Even when considered in combination, these additional elements represent mere instructions to apply an exception and/or data gathering, which do not provide an inventive concept. The claims do not include any additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Considering the claim limitations as an ordered combination, claim 10 does not include significantly more than the abstract idea. The claim 10 is not patent subject matter eligible. Dependent claims 11-18 are further addressed below.
Dependent Claims 2-9 and 11-18
Regarding claims 2-9, claim 2 depends from claim 1 and further recites: “wherein the second measurement device is a sonar measurement device that is rigidly coupled to and offset from the target”, claim 3 depends from claim 1 and further recites: “wherein: the target is fixed to a ground surface in the environment; the second measurement device is a ground penetrating radar device that is configured to measure a distance to the target when the ground penetrating radar is moved over the target; and the fixed relationship is the distance”, claim 4 depends from claim 3 and further recites: “wherein the physical parameter is measured by the ground penetrating radar”, claim 5 depends from claim 4 and further recites: “wherein the first frame of reference is a geodetic frame of reference and the first measurement device is one of a theodolite, a total station, a laser tracker or a laser scanner”, claim 6 depends from claim 1 and further recites: “wherein the second measurement device is a sound pressure camera and the target includes a tone generator”, claim 7 depends from claim 6 and further recites: “wherein the acquiring of the second plurality of 3D coordinates includes: generating sound at a predetermined frequency and level with the tone generator; acquiring a third plurality of 3D coordinates of the target in the second coordinate frame of reference with the sound pressure camera based on the sound; acquiring a fourth plurality of 3D coordinates of the environment in the second coordinate frame of reference with the sound pressure camera, at least a portion of the fourth plurality of 3D coordinates having an associated sound pressure level value; and registering the third plurality of 3D coordinates and the fourth plurality of 3D coordinates in the second frame of reference”, claim 8 depends from claim 7 and further recites: “wherein the target includes a base having a retaini element” and claim 9 depends from claim 8 and further recites: “further comprising: coupling a marker to the retaining element prior to acquiring the first plurality of 3D coordinates; removing the marker from the retaining element and coupling the tone generator to the retaining element prior to acquiring the third plurality of 3D coordinates; and deactivating the tone generator prior to acquiring the fourth plurality of 3D coordinates”.
These features have been considered in combination with the features required by the claim(s) from which these claims depend. The bolded portion of the additional feature are considered to further clarify the details of the human’s mental activity (e.g., with pen and paper). See MPEP §§ 2106.04(a)(2)(III). The details of the measurement devices, measuring and/or target of claims 2-8 are considered to further clarify the details of the insignificant extra-solution activity (mere data inputting/gathering and/or data outputting). See MPEP § 2106.05(g). Therefore, these features are considered to be drawn to the abstract idea without adding significantly more, and hence claims 2-9 are considered to be ineligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Claim 11 has substantially similar limitations as recited in claim 2; therefore, it is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 for the same reasons.
Claim 12 has substantially similar limitations as recited in claim 3; therefore, it is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 for the same reasons.
Claim 13 has substantially similar limitations as recited in claim 4; therefore, it is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 for the same reasons.
Claim 14 has substantially similar limitations as recited in claim 5; therefore, it is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 for the same reasons.
Claim 15 has substantially similar limitations as recited in claim 6; therefore, it is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 for the same reasons.
Claim 16 has substantially similar limitations as recited in claim 7; therefore, it is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 for the same reasons.
Claim 17 has substantially similar limitations as recited in claim 8; therefore, it is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 for the same reasons.
Claim 18 has substantially similar limitations as recited in claim 9; therefore, it is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 for the same reasons.
For the foregoing reasons, claims 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to patent ineligible subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 3-5, 10 and 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over SELVIAH et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0043186 A1) in view of ARNDT et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2002/0175849 A1).
Regarding claim 1, SELVIAH teaches a method for generating a three-dimensional (3D) model of an environment (high quality 3D datasets and models are readily created from two overlapping datasets of a subject of interest, Para. [0010] of SELVIAH), the method comprising: acquiring a first plurality of 3D coordinates of surfaces in the environment in a first coordinate frame of reference using a first measurement device, the first plurality of 3D coordinates including at least one subset of 3D coordinates of a target, the first measurement device optically measuring the plurality of 3D coordinates (the LIDAR scanner may scan in 3D … alternative optical 3D scanning apparatus includes interferometers, photogrammetry, projection imaging, scanning focal plane, shape from shadow, optical flow, Para. [0048] of SELVIAH; [LIDAR 3D scanning and/or the alternative optical 3D scanning are interpreted as optically measuring the 3D coordinates]; Regarding the “target”, the space being imaged may be, for example, the inside of a building, the outside of a building, a landscape, an open cast mine, a coastline, the inside or outside of a pipe or network of pipes, a cave, a tunnel such as a mining tunnel, a road, parts of a person or animal, or a skeleton, Para. [0045] of SELVIAH, which is also discussing the LIDAR scanning (i.e., at least Paras. [0044]-[0048] are discussing optical/imaging/scanning by LIDAR); See also each dataset contains data representing a 3D image of a subject of interest, Para. [0014] of SELVIAH; [the subject of interest is interpreted as corresponding to a target]); acquiring a second plurality of 3D coordinates of the environment in a second frame of reference using a second measurement device (the imaging apparatus from which one or both of the first 3D dataset and the second 3D dataset is obtained is a ground penetrating radar or through wall radar using polarised or unpolarised electromagnetic waves and the imaged space is subterranean or blocked from vision via visible light by a wall or other structure … an application of ground penetrating radar is to detect reflection from wet patches of subterranean material, pipes, archaeological remains, unexploded ordnance and tunnels, Para. [0049] of SELVIAH), the second measurement device being operably disposed in a fixed relationship to the target (as discussed above in the Section 112(b) rejection, fixed relationship is being interpreted as corresponding to fixed relationship to ground; SELVIAH teaches at least one scan must be selected as a fixed reference scan … this could for example be the scan that has the largest number of connected reference scans … it is also possible to have multiple fixed scans, whose positions could for example be based on accurate measurements using a total station, GPS, or other methods, Para. [0368] of SELVIAH; [a fixed scan having a GPS or total station position is interpreted as corresponding to a fixed relationship to the ground/target]); and registering the second plurality of 3D coordinates with the first plurality of 3D coordinates in the first coordinate frame of reference based at least in part on the at least one subset of 3D coordinates and the fixed relationship (calculate a positional shift (translation) required to position the two clouds of points such that the points representing the same features in the scanned space are co-located in the common coordinate system … therefore, the two separate input datasets can be merged and treated as a single dataset, Para. [0033] of SELVIAH; See also records each point cloud data point as a point in one spatial dimension, Para. [0034]; [recording the point cloud (3D) data points/coordinates is interpreted as corresponding to registering the same, and SELVIAH refers to the process as scan-registration at Paras. [0238] of SELVIAH]; See also output the first point cloud and the rotated second point cloud as a merged point cloud in the common coordinate system, with the rotated second point cloud translated along each of the three lines in the common coordinates system by the respective recorded translation, Para. [0032] of SELVIAH; See also store [interpreted as register] the first 3D dataset and the second 3D dataset as respective clouds of points in a common coordinate system; and … transform the stored first point cloud into a first set of vectors, and transform the stored second point cloud into a second set of vectors, wherein each member of the first set of vectors and each member of the second set of vectors represents the respective point and neighbouring points; find at which angle of rotation of the second set of vectors relative to the first set in one or more of three axes of rotation, defined in the common coordinate system, the greatest degree of matching between the angular distribution of the first set of vectors and the angular distribution of the second set of vectors is obtained … store or output the angle of rotation about each of the one or more axis or axes of rotation for which the calculated degree of matching is greatest; or rotate the second point cloud by the stored angle of rotation about the respective one or more axes of rotation in the common coordinate system and output the rotated second point cloud in the common coordinate system, Para. [0006] of SELVIAH; Regarding “frame of reference”, Para. [0084] of SELVIAH discloses a common origin between the first and second datasets; See also record the position, relative to an arbitrary origin, of a projection onto the line of each of the first point cloud, Para. [0187] of SELVIAH; See also SELVIAH teaches at least one scan must be selected as a fixed reference scan … this could for example be the scan that has the largest number of connected reference scans … it is also possible to have multiple fixed scans, whose positions could for example be based on accurate measurements using a total station, GPS, or other methods, Para. [0368] of SELVIAH; [a fixed scan having a GPS or total station position is interpreted as corresponding to a fixed relationship to the ground/target]).
SELVIAH does not appear to explicitly disclose the second plurality of 3D coordinates including at least one physical parameter. However, ARNDT is in the field of locating an object or structure by employment of a radar-like probe and detection technique (Para. [0015] of ARNDT) and teaches the second plurality of 3D coordinates including at least one physical parameter (generates data representative of a three dimensional profile of dielectric permittivity, Para. [0020] of ARNDT; See also Para. [0017] of ARNDT discussing other physical parameters, such as resistivity, conductivity, capacitance).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the sonar/ground penetrating radar measurement device of SELVIAH with the ground penetrating radar method of ARNDT (including incorporation of the physical parameter of permittivity) for the purpose of providing a reliable automated technique for the rotational alignment of overlapping 3D datasets and/or obviates the need to identify and find the location and orientation of natural targets (Para. [0005] & [0007] of ARNDT).
Regarding claim 3, SELVIAH as modified by ARNDT teaches the method of claim 1 (as shown above), wherein: the target is fixed to a ground surface in the environment (one intended use of the invention is to locate and identify land mines, particularly small antipersonnel plastic land mines, Para. [0031] of ARNDT); the second measurement device is a ground penetrating radar device that is configured to measure a distance to the target when the ground penetrating radar is moved over the target (the imaging apparatus from which one or both of the first 3D dataset and the second 3D dataset is obtained is a ground penetrating radar or through wall radar using polarised or unpolarised electromagnetic waves and the imaged space is subterranean or blocked from vision via visible light by a wall or other structure … an application of ground penetrating radar is to detect reflection from wet patches of subterranean material, pipes, archaeological remains, unexploded ordnance and tunnels, Para. [0049] of SELVIAH; See also ground penetrating radar, Para. [0080] of ARNDT); and the fixed relationship is the distance (FIG. 3 for which data from only a single physical position is shown … for FIG. 3 antenna 15 is stationary with respect to the ground, Para. [0061] of ARNDT).
Regarding claim 4, SELVIAH as modified by ARNDT teaches the method of claim 3 (as shown above), wherein the physical parameter is measured by the ground penetrating radar (the imaging apparatus from which one or both of the first 3D dataset and the second 3D dataset is obtained is a ground penetrating radar or through wall radar using polarised or unpolarised electromagnetic waves and the imaged space is subterranean or blocked from vision via visible light by a wall or other structure … an application of ground penetrating radar is to detect reflection from wet patches of subterranean material, pipes, archaeological remains, unexploded ordnance and tunnels, Para. [0049] of SELVIAH; [Para. [0074] of the specification appears to indicate that ground penetrating radar is a physical parameter]).
Regarding claim 5, SELVIAH as modified by ARNDT teaches the method of claim 4 (as shown above), wherein the first frame of reference is a geodetic frame of reference (positions could for example be based on accurate measurements using a total station, GPS, Para. [0368] of ARNDT; See also additional information from elements 58 and 60 might also include GPS information to determine the particular area being covered, Para. [0055] of ARNDT; [GPS information is interpreted as geodetic information]) and the first measurement device is one of a theodolite, a total station, a laser tracker or a laser scanner (the LIDAR scanner may scan in 3D … alternative optical 3D scanning apparatus includes interferometers, photogrammetry, projection imaging, scanning focal plane, shape from shadow, optical flow, Para. [0048] of SELVIAH).
Regarding claim 10, SELVIAH teaches a method for generating a three-dimensional (3D) model of an environment (high quality 3D datasets and models are readily created from two overlapping datasets of a subject of interest, Para. [0010] of SELVIAH), the method comprising: providing a first measurement device configured to optically measuring a plurality of 3D coordinates AND acquiring the first plurality of 3D coordinates in a first coordinate frame of reference using the first measurement device, the first plurality of 3D coordinates including at least one subset of 3D coordinates of a target (the LIDAR scanner may scan in 3D … alternative optical 3D scanning apparatus includes interferometers, photogrammetry, projection imaging, scanning focal plane, shape from shadow, optical flow, Para. [0048] of SELVIAH; [LIDAR 3D scanning and/or the alternative optical 3D scanning are interpreted as optically measuring the 3D coordinates]; Regarding the “target”, the space being imaged may be, for example, the inside of a building, the outside of a building, a landscape, an open cast mine, a coastline, the inside or outside of a pipe or network of pipes, a cave, a tunnel such as a mining tunnel, a road, parts of a person or animal, or a skeleton, Para. [0045] of SELVIAH, which is also discussing the LIDAR scanning (i.e., at least Paras. [0044]-[0048] are discussing optical/imaging/scanning by LIDAR); See also each dataset contains data representing a 3D image of a subject of interest, Para. [0014] of SELVIAH; [the subject of interest is interpreted as corresponding to a target]); providing a second measurement device configured to measure a second plurality of 3D coordinates (the imaging apparatus from which one or both of the first 3D dataset and the second 3D dataset is obtained is a ground penetrating radar or through wall radar using polarised or unpolarised electromagnetic waves and the imaged space is subterranean or blocked from vision via visible light by a wall or other structure … an application of ground penetrating radar is to detect reflection from wet patches of subterranean material, pipes, archaeological remains, unexploded ordnance and tunnels, Para. [0049] of SELVIAH; [Para. [0074] of the specification appears to indicate that ground penetrating radar is a physical parameter]); disposing the second measurement device in a fixed relationship to the target (as discussed above in the Section 112(b) rejection, fixed relationship is being interpreted as corresponding to fixed relationship to ground; SELVIAH teaches at least one scan must be selected as a fixed reference scan … this could for example be the scan that has the largest number of connected reference scans … it is also possible to have multiple fixed scans, whose positions could for example be based on accurate measurements using a total station, GPS, or other methods, Para. [0368] of SELVIAH; [a fixed scan having a GPS or total station position is interpreted as corresponding to a fixed relationship to the ground/target]); acquiring the second plurality of 3D coordinates in a second frame of reference using the second measurement device (the imaging apparatus from which one or both of the first 3D dataset and the second 3D dataset is obtained is a ground penetrating radar or through wall radar using polarised or unpolarised electromagnetic waves and the imaged space is subterranean or blocked from vision via visible light by a wall or other structure … an application of ground penetrating radar is to detect reflection from wet patches of subterranean material, pipes, archaeological remains, unexploded ordnance and tunnels, Para. [0049] of SELVIAH); and registering the second plurality of 3D coordinates with the first plurality of 3D coordinates in the first coordinate frame of reference based at least in part on the at least one subset of 3D coordinates and the fixed relationship (calculate a positional shift (translation) required to position the two clouds of points such that the points representing the same features in the scanned space are co-located in the common coordinate system … therefore, the two separate input datasets can be merged and treated as a single dataset, Para. [0033] of SELVIAH; See also records each point cloud data point as a point in one spatial dimension, Para. [0034]; [recording the point cloud (3D) data points/coordinates is interpreted as corresponding to registering the same, and SELVIAH refers to the process as scan-registration at Paras. [0238] of SELVIAH]; See also output the first point cloud and the rotated second point cloud as a merged point cloud in the common coordinate system, with the rotated second point cloud translated along each of the three lines in the common coordinates system by the respective recorded translation, Para. [0032] of SELVIAH; See also store [interpreted as register] the first 3D dataset and the second 3D dataset as respective clouds of points in a common coordinate system; and … transform the stored first point cloud into a first set of vectors, and transform the stored second point cloud into a second set of vectors, wherein each member of the first set of vectors and each member of the second set of vectors represents the respective point and neighbouring points; find at which angle of rotation of the second set of vectors relative to the first set in one or more of three axes of rotation, defined in the common coordinate system, the greatest degree of matching between the angular distribution of the first set of vectors and the angular distribution of the second set of vectors is obtained … store or output the angle of rotation about each of the one or more axis or axes of rotation for which the calculated degree of matching is greatest; or rotate the second point cloud by the stored angle of rotation about the respective one or more axes of rotation in the common coordinate system and output the rotated second point cloud in the common coordinate system, Para. [0006] of SELVIAH; Regarding “frame of reference”, Para. [0084] of SELVIAH discloses a common origin between the first and second datasets; See also record the position, relative to an arbitrary origin, of a projection onto the line of each of the first point cloud, Para. [0187] of SELVIAH; See also SELVIAH teaches at least one scan must be selected as a fixed reference scan … this could for example be the scan that has the largest number of connected reference scans … it is also possible to have multiple fixed scans, whose positions could for example be based on accurate measurements using a total station, GPS, or other methods, Para. [0368] of SELVIAH; [a fixed scan having a GPS or total station position is interpreted as corresponding to a fixed relationship to the ground/target]).
SELVIAH does not appear to explicitly disclose a second plurality of 3D coordinates that include at least one physical parameter. However, ARNDT is in the field of locating an object or structure by employment of a radar-like probe and detection technique (Para. [0015] of ARNDT) and teaches a second plurality of 3D coordinates that include at least one physical parameter (generates data representative of a three dimensional profile of dielectric permittivity, Para. [0020] of ARNDT; See also Para. [0017] of ARNDT discussing other physical parameters, such as resistivity, conductivity, capacitance).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the sonar/ground penetrating radar measurement device of SELVIAH with the ground penetrating radar method of ARNDT (including incorporation of the physical parameter of permittivity) for the purpose of providing a reliable automated technique for the rotational alignment of overlapping 3D datasets and/or obviates the need to identify and find the location and orientation of natural targets (Para. [0005] & [0007] of ARNDT).
Claim 12 has substantially similar limitations as recited in claim 3; therefore, it is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 for the same reasons.
Claim 13 has substantially similar limitations as recited in claim 4; therefore, it is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 for the same reasons.
Claim 14 has substantially similar limitations as recited in claim 5; therefore, it is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 for the same reasons.
Claims 2 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over SELVIAH et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0043186 A1) in view of ARNDT et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2002/0175849 A1), and further in view of JONGSMA et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2017/0328982 A1).
Regarding claim 2, SELVIAH as modified by ARNDT teaches the method of claim 1 (as shown above), wherein the second measurement device is a sonar measurement device (the imaging apparatus from which one or both of the first 3D dataset and the second 3D dataset is obtained is a sonar scanner, Para. [0060] of SELVIAH).
SELVIAH as modified by ARNDT does not appear to explicitly disclose a sonar measurement device that is rigidly coupled to and offset from the target. However, JONGSMA is in the field of determining the positions and orientations of objects (Para. [0001] of JONGSMA) and teaches a sonar device that is rigidly coupled to and offset from the target (communication takes place via the acoustic transponder 128 to the transceiver 12 on the ROV 2 as an encoded acoustic pulse stream … communication may also take place by sonar, Para. [0104] of JONGSMA; As shown in FIG. 1 of JONGSMA (annotated below), the light source 30 of the beacon 4, which is interpreted as being a target, is rigidly coupled to and offset from the transponder 28 (sonar device), Para. [0101] of JONGSMA; See also acoustic beacon may be located adjacent to the light source with a known offset, Para. [0019] of SELVIAH).
PNG
media_image1.png
281
353
media_image1.png
Greyscale
<Examiner-annotated FIG. 1 of JONGSMA>
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the sonar measurement device of SELVIAH as modified by ARNDT with the positioning/location of the sonar device of JONGSMA for the purpose of accurately identifying the position and or orientation of an object underwater (subsea) (Para. [0002] of JONGSMA).
Claim 11 has substantially similar limitations as recited in claim 2; therefore, it is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 for the same reasons.
Claims 6, 7, 15 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over SELVIAH et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0043186 A1) in view of ARNDT et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2002/0175849 A1), and further in view of BEATY (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2013/0230179 A1).
Regarding claim 6, SELVIAH as modified by ARNDT teaches the method of claim 1 (as shown above).
SELVIAH as modified by ARNDT does not appear to explicitly disclose wherein the second measurement device is a sound pressure camera and the target includes a tone generator. However, BEATY is in the field of determining the position (location) of a target to align with a reference location (Para. [0007] of BEATY) and teaches wherein the second measurement device is a sound pressure camera (receiving device 1730 is an acoustic camera, Para. [0073] of BEATY; Regarding measuring, see also positional locations of the identified sound sources are determined using output of the sound sensing devices as input to a first location processor of the present invention, Para. [0045] of BEATY) and the target includes a tone generator (targeted characteristics of one or more sound sources in a predetermined sound environment, Para. [0010] of BEATTY; See also sound source may include electronic device and/or artificial sound generator, Para. [0012] of BEATY; See also in certain situations, one or more of the sound sources may be a speaker, for instance, Para. [0036] of BEATY; [an artificial sound generator and/or speaker are interpreted as corresponding to a tone generator]; [Applicant’s specification, at Para. [0071], recites “the tone generator may be any device that is capable of generating a sound”]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the method of merging multiple measurement device coordinates/locations of SELVIAH as modified by ARNDT with the positioning/location of the sound source as in BEATY for the purpose of accurately determine a reference sound source position/location in an environment (Para. [0007] of BEATY).
Regarding claim 7, SELVIAH as modified by ARNDT and BEATY teaches the method of claim 6 (as shown above), wherein the acquiring of the second plurality of 3D coordinates (the location may be a two axis coordinate or a three-dimensional coordinate, Para. [0051] of BEATY; See also positional locations of the identified sound sources are determined using output of the sound sensing devices as input to a first location processor of the present invention, Para. [0045] of BEATY) includes: generating sound at a predetermined frequency and level with the tone generator (sound target characteristics, by example, may include frequency range, decibel level, pitch range, loudness range, directional location, and period of time, Para. [0040] of BEATY; See also targeted characteristics of one or more sound sources in a predetermined sound environment, Para. [0010] of BEATTY; See also sound source may include electronic device and/or artificial sound generator, Para. [0012] of BEATY); acquiring a third plurality of 3D coordinates of the target in the second coordinate frame of reference with the sound pressure camera based on the sound (at 750, positional locations of the identified sound sources are determined using output of the sound sensing devices as input to a first location processor of the present invention … the location may be a two axis coordinate or a three-dimensional coordinate, Para. [0051] of BEATY; See also receiving device 1730 is an acoustic camera, Para. [0073] of BEATY); acquiring a fourth plurality of 3D coordinates of the environment in the second coordinate frame of reference with the sound pressure camera, at least a portion of the fourth plurality of 3D coordinates having an associated sound pressure level value (the acoustic camera provides a mapping of the sound pressures detected in the environment and the data is input for processing by the present inventio, Para. [0068] of BEATY; See also sound sensing device may include sensors capable of detecting air pressure change, Para. [0044] of BEATY; See also loud sounds result from a larger pressure variation which dissipates over distance, Para. [0035] of BEATY, and sound target characteristics, by example, may include frequency range, decibel level, pitch range, loudness range, directional location, and period of time, Para. [0040] of BEATY; [loudness range is a target characteristic and results from pressure]; See also targeted characteristics of one or more sound sources in a predetermined sound environment, Para. [0010] of BEATTY; See also sound source may include electronic device and/or artificial sound generator, Para. [0012] of BEATY); and registering the third plurality of 3D coordinates and the fourth plurality of 3D coordinates in the second frame of reference (determines a first location in relation to the target reference frame at t1, Para. [0046] of BEATY; See also output from the first location processor is provided as input to a first referential processor which associates the location information of the targeted sound source at t1 with the target reference axis, thereby determining the location of the identified source of target sound, Para. [0050] of BEATY; [associating the location information of each/multiple sound sources is interpreted as registering third and fourth plurality of coordinates]; See also from FIG. 3, each sound source (310, 320, 330, 340) may produce sounds that are of frequencies which overlap varyingly during a performance or presentation … in certain situations, one or more of the sound sources may be a speaker, for instance, Para. [0036] of BEATY; See also sound sources are identified within the environment using sensing apparatus, Para. [0044] of BEATY; See also positional locations of the identified sound sources are determined using output of the sound sensing devices as input to a first location processor, Para. [0045] of BEATY; See also the acoustic camera provides a mapping of the sound pressures detected in the environment and the data is input for processing by the present inventio, Para. [0068] of BEATY).
Claim 15 has substantially similar limitations as recited in claim 6; therefore, it is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 for the same reasons.
Claim 16 has substantially similar limitations as recited in claim 7; therefore, it is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 for the same reasons.
Claims 8, 9, 17 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over SELVIAH et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0043186 A1) in view of ARNDT et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2002/0175849 A1), and further in view of BEATY (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2013/0230179 A1) and ADAMS et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2007/0126579 A1).
Regarding claim 8, SELVIAH as modified by ARNDT and BEATY teaches the method of claim 7 (as shown above).
SELVIAH as modified by ARNDT and BEATY does not appear to explicitly disclose wherein the target includes a base having a retaining element. However, ADAMS is in the field of detection and location of survey markers (Para. [0002] of ADAMS) and teaches wherein the target includes a base having a retaining element (RFID tags must be located at the apex of any completely metal survey marker to achieve omni directional detection, Para. [0043] of ADAMS; [the metal survey marker providing the RFID tags, which themselves are markers, is interpreted as a base having a retaining element]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the method of merging multiple measurement device coordinates/locations of SELVIAH as modified by ARNDT and BEATY with the survey marker method as in ADAMS for the purpose of re-locating property boundary survey markers (Para. [0004] of ADAMS).
Regarding claim 9, SELVIAH as modified by ARNDT, BEATY and ADAMS teaches the method of claim 8 (as shown above), further comprising: coupling a marker to the retaining element (RFID tags must be located at the apex of any completely metal survey marker to achieve omni directional detection, Para. [0043] of ADAMS) prior to acquiring the first plurality of 3D coordinates (a system of property boundary survey markers that respond to radio frequency interrogation and respond with unique identifying information, preferably including specific location coordinates, Para. [0013] of ADAMS); removing the marker from the retaining element (upon locating the survey marker, the operator can reset the alert signal, stopping the alert for the detected survey marker, Para. [0055] of ADAMS; [stopping the alert is interpreted as corresponding to removing the light/visual marker]) and coupling the tone generator to the retaining element (a passive tuned transponder circuit contained in packaged tags attached to the survey marker casing, Para. [0053] of ADAMS) prior to acquiring the third plurality of 3D coordinates (a system of property boundary survey markers that respond to radio frequency interrogation and respond with unique identifying information, preferably including specific location coordinates, Para. [0013] of ADAMS); and deactivating the tone generator (once the survey marker has been visually located, the operator resets the alert, thus turning off the lamp and tone, Para. [0053] of ADAMS) prior to acquiring the fourth plurality of 3D coordinates (a system of property boundary survey markers that respond to radio frequency interrogation and respond with unique identifying information, preferably including specific location coordinates, Para. [0013] of ADAMS).
Claim 17 has substantially similar limitations as recited in claim 8; therefore, it is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 for the same reasons.
Claim 18 has substantially similar limitations as recited in claim 9; therefore, it is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 for the same reasons.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN P HOCKER whose telephone number is (571)272-0501. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00 AM - 5:00 PM EST.
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, Rehana Perveen can be reached on (571)272-3676. 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.
JOHN P. HOCKER
Examiner
Art Unit 2189
/JOHN P HOCKER/Examiner, Art Unit 2189
/REHANA PERVEEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2189
Prosecution Insights