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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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)(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) 1-8, 12, 14-21, and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Fleischman et al. (US 2021/0375062).
With regard to claim 1, Fleischman discloses a method comprising:
receiving a model corresponding to an assembly (e. g. floorplan stored in memory, par. [0030]);
defining an object of interest in the model (e.g. a wall installed in a building, [0042]);
receiving a point cloud generated based on data obtained by scanning the assembly using a three-dimensional (3D) coordinate measurement device (model generation module receives lidar data to generate a 3D point cloud, para. [0034]);
aligning the point cloud to the model (3D model is aligned with the floorplan, [0034]);
determining whether a component corresponding to the object of interest is located correctly relative to the assembly based at least in part on the point cloud aligned to the model (detect construction installation error for a wall, para. [0042]); and
responsive to determining that the component is not located correctly, taking a corrective action (flagging an error for a human operator to revise the construction, para. [0042]).
With regard to claim 14, Fleischman discloses a system comprising:
a laser scanner to perform at least one scan and generate a data set that includes a plurality of three-dimensional coordinates (LIDAR scanner that emits laser beam and generates 3D data, para. [0027]); and
a processing system (Fig. 9, paras. [0116-0117]) comprising:
a memory comprising (903) computer readable instructions;
and a processing device (901) for executing the computer readable instructions, the computer readable instructions controlling the processing device to perform operations comprising:
receiving a model corresponding to an assembly (e. g. floorplan stored in memory, par. [0030]);
defining an object of interest in the model (e.g. a wall installed in a building, [0042]);
receiving a point cloud generated based on data obtained by scanning the assembly using a three-dimensional (3D) coordinate measurement device (model generation module receives lidar data to generate a 3D point cloud, para. [0034]);
aligning the point cloud to the model (3D model is aligned with the floorplan, [0034]);
determining whether a component corresponding to the object of interest is located correctly relative to the assembly based at least in part on the point cloud aligned to the model (detect construction installation error for a wall, para. [0042]); and
responsive to determining that the component is not located correctly, taking a corrective action (flagging an error for a human operator to revise the construction, para. [0042]).
With regard to claims 2-3 and 15-16, the determination comprises determining whether the component is present (in a given location of the plan, para. [0042]).
With regard to claims 4-7 and 17-20, the model includes a graphical representation in the model visualization interface (Figs. 3A-E, paras [0071-0072]), including indicating whether a component such as a wall is present in the assembly of the building (may be further indicated in the Progress Visualization Interface, Figs. 4A-E & paras. [0076-0079]).
With regard to claims 12 and 25, feature points are extracted from the scan data to generated a database of feature points (locations of features using SLAM module, paras. [0050-0051].
With regard to claims 8 and 21, the determination of the component being located (aligned) correctly comprises comparing the distance between a point of the point cloud associated with the component and a know location of the model to a threshold (para. [0042]).
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) 10-11, 13, 23-24 and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fleischman et al. as applied to claims 1 and 14 above, and further in view of Rosengaus et al. (US 2013/0096873.)
With regard to claim 10-11 and 23-24, Fleischman et al. do not disclose, but Rosengaus et al. teach, that a computer aided design (CAD) model or BIM is used as a model for a system for quality check and progress monitoring at construction sites (para. [0207] & [0075]). Specifically, BIM data can be monitored with portable and/or fixed sensors, software, and processors to managed quality checks and progress, which reduces the need for human intervention that may be more expensive (para. [0027]). Therefore, one skilled in the art, e. g. an optical engineer would have found it obvious before the effective filing date of the application to use CAD and/or BIM for the model, in the system and its method of operation disclosed by Fleischman et al.
With regard to claim 13 and 26, Fleischman et al. do not disclose, but Rosengaus et al. teach, a localization (display of data) of an augmented reality device using a feature point database (such as BIM overlaid with acquired data, para. [0099]. The use of augmented reality to display data is advantageous for use by workers on a building site, since the construction itself is visible simultaneous with the data. There one skilled in the art, e. g. an optical engineer would have found it obvious before the effective filing date of the application would have found the limitations of these claims to be obvious modifications to the system and its method of operation as disclosed by Fleischman.
Claim(s) 27 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fleischman et al. as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of Steffey et al. (US 9,074,878). Fleischman et al. do not disclose, but Steffey et al. teach in the same field of endeavor a 3D laser scanner having a processing system including a scanner controller, a housing (Fig. 1, shells 46, 48, 50, 52), light source (Fig. 4, emitter 28), a beam steering unit (measuring head (22) rotates about a vertical axis (23) and horizontal axis (25), a first angle measuring device, a second angle measuring device (angular positions measured by encoder 4th col. lines 36-57), and a light receiver (36). The beam steering unit cooperates with the light source and the light receiver to define the scan area, the light source and light receiver configured to cooperate with the processing system to determine a first distance to a first object point and the 3D coordinates of the point based on the first distance, a first angle of rotation (azimuthal) and a second angle of rotation (vertical) (8th col. lines 3-13). These elements taught by Steffey et al. were typical in the art for a 3D laser scanner; therefore one skilled in the art, e. g. an optical engineer would have found them obvious to include before the effective filing date of the application, in the laser scanner in the system of Fleischmann.
Claim(s) 9 and 22are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fleischman et al. (US 2021/0375062) in view of Official Notice. Fleischman et al. disclose that the threshold for determining whether a component is located correctly is “predetermined”; however, it was typical in the art for a threshold for determination of whether location data is close is adjustable either by manual input or automatically based on required precision, and/or allowed errors in the assembly. The Examiner takes Official Notice of this fact. If applicant does not traverse the assertion of the Examiner’s assertion of Official Notice or applicant’s traverse is not adequate, this statement of well-known fact will taken to be admitted prior art, otherwise a reference will be supplied as evidence. See MPEP 2144.03. Therefore, the claimed limitations were obvious.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements filed on Oct. 5, 2023 and May 30, 2023 have been considered by the Examiner.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Samuelson et al., Arthur et al., Treskunov et al., Vu et al. and Bauer disclose alignment of point clouds with design data.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to ERIC L BOLDA whose telephone number is 571-272-8104. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F from 8:30am to 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, YUQING XIAO can be reached on 571-270-3603. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of 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.
/ERIC L BOLDA/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3645
Prosecution Insights