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, 7, 8, and 15-17 have been considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection.
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 do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: control and analysis unit in claim 1.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend 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 avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 2, 3, and 9 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The term “rough” in claims 2 and 9 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “rough” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. In claim 2, it is unclear what is meant by defining a “rough form” of a scanned object.
Claim 3 recites the limitation “classes for defining object types respectively shape types”. It is unclear what is meant by this limitation
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 3, 5-8, and 15-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rohner et al. (Rohner) (US 2024/0134048) in view of Li et al. (Li) (US 2020/0200907).
Regarding claims 1 and 7, Rohner discloses optoelectronic measuring device (ABSTRACT, [0028], an optoelectronic module) having a scanning functionality for generating points by scanning sampling of surfaces of objects ([0131], a point cloud is generated by scanning points of an object’s surface), wherein the optoelectronic measuring device is selected from a laser scanner ([0003], a laser tracker is used), the optoelectronic measuring device comprising:
a radiation source, in particular a laser source, for generating measuring radiation ([0003], [0131], a laser is used to generate a point cloud),
of a form of a measuring beam, whereby the emission direction of the measuring beam is variable about at least one axis, in particular two axes perpendicultar to one another ([0005], [0017], the light source is swept through orthogonal axes),
at least one position or angle sensor for measuring the emission direction of the measuring beam ([0017], The laser tracker furthermore includes an angle detector configured for detecting angle data with respect to a rotation of the emitting component around the two axes of rotation),
an optoelectronic detector for detecting reflected measuring radiation ([0003], [0151], the reflected light is detected),
a control and analysis unit designed for measuring a distance value for a respective scan point ([0017], the distance to a point is determined).
Rohner is silent about whereby the control and analysis unit is designed for automatic scan point reduction of the number of generated scan points by discarding of scan points, wherein the automatic scan point reduction comprises an object type-specific scan point reduction, whereby object type refers to the kind of object, in particular whereby the number of scan points remains unreduced for objects of a type not specified for scan point reduction.
Li from the same or similar field of endeavor discloses whereby the control and analysis unit is designed for automatic scan point reduction of the number of generated scan points by discarding of scan points, wherein the automatic scan point reduction comprises an object type-specific scan point reduction, whereby object type refers to the kind of object, in particular whereby the number of scan points remains unreduced for objects of a type not specified for scan point reduction ([0018], [0019], the control and annotation systems 132 and 136 for modifying point clouds is part of the Lidar system, [0019], points are removed from a point cloud based on a type of detected object which is imaged).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Li into the teachings of Rohner for faster detector to object distance detection and for easier determination of object types (Li: [0002]).
Regarding claim 2, Rohner discloses wherein the control and analysis unit is designed for determination of scan points -denoted key points- based on the set of generated scan points of an object of a type specified for scan point reduction which key points define a rough form of a scanned object ([0025], a point cloud is used to generate a model of the scanned object).
Regarding claim 3, Li further discloses wherein the control and analysis unit comprises information about object classes for defining object types respectively ([0018], human classification data is input for determining object types), whereby for each object class it is defined if, and particularly to what extent, scan points are to be reduced ([0019], points for different types of objects, such as landmarks/buildings, are processed based on the detected object type and are removed from the point cloud).
Regarding claim 5, Li further discloses wherein the control and analysis unit executes the object and/or shape type-specific scan point reduction based on a machine learning algorithm, in particular based on a neural network, designed for the object and/or shape type- specific scan point reduction ([0007], [0017], [0019], the object detection model is a deep neural network (DNN)).
Regarding claim 6, Li further discloses wherein the machine learning algorithm is embodied as a neural network configured to consider for the reduction information about intensity of the detected measurement radiation ([0019], One example of the filtering is the removal of data points corresponding to road lane lines or marks by thresholding based on the intensity of the LIDAR measurements).
Regarding claim 8, Li further discloses wherein the reduction is based solely on scanning data of the generated scanning points ([0019], points are removed from a point cloud based on a type of detected object which is imaged).
Regarding claims 15-17, the limitations of claims 15-17 are rejected in the analysis of claims 1, 6, and 7. Li further discloses a computer program, which is stored on a non-transitory machine-readable medium, for controlling and/or carrying out the method ([0022], a stored program is executed).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4 and 10-14 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Eckman et al. (Eckman) (US 2024/0070888) ([0033], [0041], [0078], objects in a point cloud are identified for removal).
Toth et al. (Toth) (US 2017/0076304) ([0009], points corresponding to the ground are removed a point cloud model).
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 JEFFERY A WILLIAMS whose telephone number is (571)270-7579. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00-5:00.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Sath Perungavoor can be reached at 571-272-7455. 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.
/JEFFERY A WILLIAMS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2488
