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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in regards to application # 18/131,330 that was filed on 04/05/2023. Claims 1-20 are currently pending and are under examination.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a) because they fail to show the claimed structures and inventions clearly/visibly s as described in the specification. The submitted drawings are a black and white photographic pictures and a new clear “wire-frame” drawings are required for proper understanding and examination of the application. Any structural detail that is essential for a proper understanding of the disclosed invention should be shown in the drawing. MPEP § 608.02(d). 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. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. 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). 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 4, 15-16, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Chamberlain et al. (US 10,754,034).
Regarding Claim 1, Chamberlain discloses a mobile three-dimensional (3D) measuring system (40, Fig. 5; col. 4, lines 50-54; it’s mobile being a on a mobile platform), comprising:
a 3D measuring device (10, Fig. 5) comprising a sensor that emits a plurality of scan lines in a field of view of the sensor (Fig. 5, Fig. 9);
a field of view manipulator coupled with the 3D measuring device, the field of view manipulator comprising a passive optic element (16 static optical element, Fig. 3; “…the reflector 16 (or other type of optical element) could be external to the lidar instrument 10. It could also be static or, as shown in FIG. 4, it could be dynamic (moveable)…”; col. 2, line 59-62) that redirects a first scan line from the plurality of scan lines;
a computing system (48, Fig. 5) coupled with the 3D measuring device (10, Fig. 5), wherein:
the 3D measuring device continuously transmits a captured data from the sensor to the computing system as the 3D measuring device is moved in an environment (Fig. 5), the captured data is based on receiving a plurality of reflections corresponding to the plurality of scan lines, including a reflection of the first scan line that is redirected (Fig. 3, Fig. 5); and the computing system (48, Fig. 5) generates a 3D point cloud representing the environment based on the captured data and stores the 3D point cloud (col. 3, lines 57-60, “….Based on the undirected and redirected lidar readings, the computer system 48 can generate three dimensional data (e.g., a 3D map) for the environment, such as a geo-registered point cloud based on the lidar reflection data.”).
Regarding Claim 4, Chamberlain discloses a mobile three-dimensional (3D) measuring system (40, Fig. 5)wherein the sensor is a LIDAR device (10, Fig. 5).
Regarding Claim 15, Chamberlain discloses a mobile three-dimensional (3D) measuring system (40, Fig. 5)wherein the field of view manipulator (16, Fig. 3) redirects the first scan line in a horizontal or a vertical plane with respect to a vertical axis of the sensor (Fig. 3).
Regarding Claim 16, Chamberlain discloses a mobile three-dimensional (3D) measuring system (40, Fig. 5)wherein the passive optic element comprises a reflective surface (16, ‘reflector’, Fig. 3; reflector inherently has reflective surface).
Regarding Claim 19, Chamberlain discloses a mobile three-dimensional (3D) measuring system (40, Fig. 5)wherein the passive optic element of the field of view manipulator is adjustable to redirect the first scan line differently (16, dynamic optical element, Fig. 4).
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) 2-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chamberlain et al. (US 10,754,034) in view of Upton et al. (US 2018/0372847).
Regarding Claim 2, Chamberlain do not explicitly disclose, but Upton in the same field of endeavor teaches an optical scanner measuring device that measures the distance of a target via time-of0flight analysis (para. [0023], it’s a time -of-flight optical scanner).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the 3D measuring device scanner disclosed in Chamberlain with the time-of-flight scanner taught in Upton with a reasonable expectation of success because it provide a high accuracy (millimeter-level), non-contact measurement capability as well as to create an excellent performance in varied lighting (bright or dark) measurement situations.
Regarding Claim 3, modified Chamberlain discloses a 3D measuring device wherein the 3D measuring device is portable (40, Fig. 5; col. 4, lines 50-54; it’s mobile being a on a mobile platform).
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chamberlain et al. (US 10,754,034) in view of Peri et al. (US 2023/0290153).
Regarding Claim 5, Chamberlain do not explicitly disclose, but Peri in the same field of endeavor teaches an optical scanner/lidar system wherein the lidar system (300) is configured for wireless communication with the computing system/analyzer (314, Fig. 3)(para. 0055]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the 3D measuring device scanner and the computing system disclosed in Chamberlain to communicate wirelessly as taught in Peri with a reasonable expectation of success because it provides simplicity and eliminates the use of wired connection.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chamberlain et al. (US 10,754,034) in view of Lai et al. (US 2022/0092291).
Regarding Claim 6, Chamberlain do not explicitly disclose, but Lai in the same field of endeavor teaches an optical scanner/lidar system wherein the computing system generates a 2D projection as live feedback of the movement of the 3D measuring device ((para. [0043]; the 3D point clouds from captured data (i.e. the movement of the 3D measurement device) are projected onto 2D reference image to generate 2D image projection).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the computing system disclosed in Chamberlain to generate a 2D projection as taught in Lai with a reasonable expectation of success to obtain one or more projected 2D image frames along different directions of projection (i.e., different views) (Lai para. [0043]).
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chamberlain et al. (US 10,754,034) in view of Lai et al. (US 2022/0092291) and further view of Cornell et al. (US 2013/0093750).
Regarding claim 6, modified Chamberlain does not disclose, Cornell in the same field of endeavor teaches a lidar system wherein, the 2D projection is displayed at a first map tile level, and in response to zooming in to a portion of the 2D projection, a second map tile level is displayed (para. [0035], [0046], [0050], [0071], [0081]; depth image is projected into two-dimension images; initially first zoom level and if zooming particular portion of map results in changing zoom level number and displaying the second map tile level).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the measuring system disclosed in modified Chamberlain to provide 2D projection display at different tile levels as taught in Cornell with a reasonable expectation of success to provide 2D projection displays based on zooming such that more detailed image of the 2D projection can be displayed at a different tile level (paragraph 35).
Claim(s) 8-13, 18, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chamberlain et al. (US 10,754,034) in view of Tsadka (US 2022/0229162).
Regarding Claims 8 and 18, Chamberlain is silent, but Tsadka in the same field of endeavor teaches a scanning lidar with a passive optic element/field of view manipulator wherein the passive optic element/field of view manipulator is a plurality of passive optic elements/ field of view manipulators (116, para. [0050], “…The at least one optical element may include a diverging lens or one or more asymmetric, aspherical, and/or cylindrical optical elements to provide an oval or elliptical output beam at a specified angle based on the desired coverage portion of FOV 104”; the passive optic element is equivalent to the field of view manipulator).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the passive optic element/ field of view manipulator disclosed in Chamberlain with the plurality of passive optic element/ field of view manipulator taught in Tsadka with a reasonable expectation of success because it helps to expanded field of view (FOV) with Single Source as well as reduce complexity and cost.
Regarding Claim 9, modified Chamberlain teaches a system wherein the plurality of passive optic elements comprises a first optic element that redirects only the first scan line and a second optic element that redirects only a second scan line (Tsadka, 116, Fig. 1; ‘…one or more asymmetric, aspherical, and/or cylindrical optical elements…’, Fig. 1; para. [0050]).
Regarding Claim 10, modified Chamberlain teaches a system wherein the first optic element redirects the first scan line at a first angle, and the second optic element redirects the second scan line at a second angle, distinct from the first angle(Tsadka, 116, Fig. 1; ‘…one or more asymmetric, aspherical, and/or cylindrical optical elements…’, Fig. 1; para. [0050], ‘…to redirect the laser pulses such that the light 118 is directed into a different angle to illuminate a corresponding portion of the FOV 104 containing one or more objects 106….’).
Regarding Claim 11, modified Chamberlain teaches a system wherein the plurality of passive optic elements (Tsadka, 116, Fig. 1; ‘…one or more asymmetric, aspherical, and/or cylindrical optical elements…’, Fig. 1; para. [0050)comprises a first optic element that redirects a first subset of the scan lines and a second optic element that redirects a second subset of the scan lines (i.e. depending on the number of optical elements used, para. [0050]).
Regarding Claim 12, modified Chamberlain teaches a system wherein the first optic element redirects the first subset of scan lines at a first angle, and the second optic element redirects the second subset of scan lines at a second angle, distinct from the first angle (Fig. 1, para. [0050], the first and second optical elements in‘…one or more asymmetric, aspherical, and/or cylindrical optical elements…’).
Regarding Claim 13, modified Chamberlain teaches a system wherein the plurality of passive optic elements (para. [0050]) comprises an optic element corresponding to each respective scan line emitted by the sensor (Fig. 1).
Regarding Claim 20, Chamberlain is silent, but Tsadka in the same field of endeavor teaches a scanning lidar wherein the scan lines comprises a light pulses emitted by the sensor (para. [0005], [0007]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the light in the sensor disclosed in Chamberlain to be a light pulses as taught in Tsadka with a reasonable expectation of success because it provides high accuracy, speed, and versatility in measurements by emitting short laser bursts, precisely measuring the time-of-flight to create detailed 3D maps (point clouds).
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chamberlain et al. (US 10,754,034).
Regarding Claim 14, Chamberlain discloses a mobile three-dimensional (3D) measuring system (40, Fig. 5).Chamberlain discloses the claimed invention except the first scan line that is redirected is originally directed to a carrier of the 3D measuring device; and the first scan line is redirected away from the carrier. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to direct the first scan line to a carrier of the 3D measuring device; and to redirect the first scan line away from the carrier, since applicant has not disclosed that directing the first scan line to a carrier of the 3D measuring device and redirecting the first scan line away from the carrier solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose and it appears that the invention would perform equally as well with the directions of the directed and undirected beams as shown in figs 3 and 4 of Chamberlain .
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chamberlain et al. (US 10,754,034) in view of Kubo et al. (US 2023/0400615).
Regarding Claim 17, Chamberlain is silent, but Kubo in the same field of endeavor teaches an optical system wherein the passive optic element comprises an absorptive surface (para. [0112], “….he optical filter 1a may be modified to have a configuration in which the light-absorbing layer is provided on a surface of an optical element such as a lens, a diffraction grating, or a polarizer. For example, the optical filter including the light-absorbing layer and an optical element such as a lens can be provided by applying the above light-absorbing composition onto a surface of the optical element and curing the applied light-absorbing composition”).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the passive optic element disclosed in Chamberlain with absorptive as taught in Kubo with a reasonable expectation of success because it provides efficient light management (harvesting or blocking), thermal control (reducing heat via selective absorption), enhanced signal processing (filtering/routing), and miniaturization.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. (see attached PTO-892).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ASSRES H WOLDEMARYAM whose telephone number is (571)272-6607. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8AM-5PM.
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, Joshua Huson can be reached at 571-270-5301. 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.
Assres H. Woldemaryam
Primary Examiner (Aeronautics and Astronautics)
Art Unit 3642
/ASSRES H WOLDEMARYAM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3642