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 . The amendments provided 09/10/2025 have been entered and considered. Claims 1, 6, 7, 11, and 18 have been amended. Claim 18 has been newly added. No new matter has been introduced
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 03/03/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Claim objections
In view of the amendments provided 03/03/2026, the objections to the claims in the final rejection (12/10/2025) are hereby withdrawn.
Claim rejections - 35 USC § 112
In view of the amendments provided 03/03/2026, the 112(a) and 112(b) rejections of the final rejection (12/10/2025) are hereby withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Prior art rejections
On pages 8-9 of the remarks (03/03/2026) applicant contends that the prior art of record cited in the final rejection (12/10/2025) does not address the possibility of an interference of a potentially moving object (emphasis added). Further, the applicant is understood to suggest that the combination of Decrop with the other relied upon prior art (as presented in the final rejection of 12/10/2025) is improper.
The examiner respectfully disagrees and finds these arguments unpersuasive. Specifically, Decrop does cover the uncertainty required by the claims in the broadest reasonable sense. Additionally, Decrop has reason for incorporation, and is pertinent to the art.
Decrop, by virtue of performing a prediction (as recognized by the applicant on page 8 of the remarks), addresses the concept of something possibly interfering, as well as the potential for an object to be moving. A prediction is only a prediction if it has yet to happen, interjecting uncertainty. Thus, it addresses the aforementioned ideas of a possible interference and an object potentially being in motion. While the terminology is not the exact same as the instant application, it addresses the limitations of the claim in the broadest reasonable interpretation.
Additionally, in response to applicant's argument that Decrop is non-analogous art, it has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In this case, Decrop is an image based system that is avoiding the capture of data, much like Masumoto (which also avoids the capture of data with respect to an imaging system as is shown in Fig. 8a-8c and [0104]). Masumoto is expressly concerned with data capture avoidance regarding a moving object, and a reason for combination is provided (namely being the avoidance of unwanted data capture without the use of memory, as is performed in Masumoto).
As such, due to the 103 rejections of said final rejection are maintained.
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.
Claims 1-5, 9, 10, 14, 16, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsumoto et al. (US publication 20120249997 A1; hereinafter “Masumoto”), in view of Török et al. (US publication 20200249017 A1; hereinafter “Török”), Ehala et al. (US patent 11727580 B2; hereinafter “Ehala”), and Decrop et al. (US publication 20220391686 A1; hereinafter “Decrop”).
In re to claim 1, Matsumoto teaches wherein: An automatic method for coordinative measuring of a measurement space (the abstract discloses that the system utilized performs measurement operations within a space using projected light. See also Fig. 6 which shows acquisition of data measurements within an imaged space (corroborated by [0029]). It is understood that the area captured by the system is the measurement space) with a measuring device (laser scanner; [0041], discloses that the system used is a laser scanner, further see also Figs. 9a-9c and Figs. 7a-7c, which show the image capture scenes) having an emitting unit for directed emission of radiation as a free beam (distance measuring unit; [0054] discloses the emission of light. See also that a beam of light is projected by the system in fig. 1 (40). It is understood that the light emitted from the distance measuring unit of the system discloses an emitting unit. It is further understood that the light emitted denotes disclosure of the free beam) and at least one camera arranged in known spatial relationship to the emitting unit and thus to an emission direction (direction of the emitted light of the measuring unit; Fig. 1 shows the light emitted has a particular direction, shown by arrows, in Fig. 1 (40)) of the free beam ([0060] discloses the presence of a second image pickup unit’s camera that captures an image (thus disclosing a camera (camera 45, see also Fig. 1 (45))). Additionally, per Fig. 1, the camera has a positional relationship to the emitting unit’s light emission (each correspondent to the claims, respectively). As the positions of these components and the projected light (40) are within space, and is predetermined according to the schematic of Fig. 1, a known spatial relationship is understood to be shown), the scanning method comprising the automatic steps of: acquiring image data in parallel to a scanning with the beam ([0060] discloses the parallel capture of image information to that of the emitting unit’s projections for distance measure), determining presence of a potentially moving object in the measurement space and - in case a potentially moving object is present ([0069] lines 8-22, discloses determination of a mobile object and the calculation of its travel speed. Thus, disclosing the determination of the presence of a potentially moving object in the measurement space (correspondent to the claims))- a spatial relation (D1, D2) of the potentially moving object to a current emission direction (E) (scanning line; [0091] describes the scanning performed by the system being done in the direction of the scanning line formed by emitted light from the system. See also Fig. 6, which shows correspondence between mobile objects and the scanning line of the system according to coordinates) by image processing (Fig. 8a-8c shows the consideration of the spatial relationship between a moving object and the emission direction (exemplified by line 76 of Fig. 8a, see also [0100], which describes Fig. 8a (76) as the scanning line of the system). See also [0104], which further describes the system reacting to the presence of a mobile object in relation to a detection area of the system using captured image data (disclosing image processing)) of at least part of the acquired image data, estimating a possible interference of the potentially moving object with the scanning beam based on the determined spatial relation (D1, D2) and triggering an automatic reaction of the scanning measuring device in response to a result of the estimating (Fig. 8a-8c and [0104] discloses the system reacting to the determination of determining that the mobile object will overlap with the scanning line by temporarily stopping measurement. Thus disclosing the estimation of possible interference by the potentially moving object triggering an automatic reaction, being the temporary stop (each correspondent to the claims, respectively)), as well as further teaching parallel capturing of at least one digital image of the measuring space in an imaging direction by the scanning measuring device with the capture of additional image data ([0071] discloses parallelization of image processing and distance measuring. Further, it is stated with respect to both the first and second image data processing units. Additionally, per [0078] the first image data is a panoramic image (which is digital per [0056] lines 3-4). It is understood that the panoramic image is the at least one digital image, and as such, its capture is parallel (see [0071]) to the capture of the second images (being additional image data)), the at least one digital image being dedicated to be combined with 3D-scan data of the measuring space ([0095] lines 8-18, discloses the combination of the panoramic image with 3D scan data of the measuring space (understood to be point group data)), determining presence of a potentially moving object in the measurement space and -in case a potentially moving object is present- ([0069] lines 8-22 discloses determination of a mobile object and the calculation of its travel speed. Thus, disclosing the determination of the presence of a potentially moving object in the measurement space (correspondent to the claims)) a spatial relation of the potentially moving object to a current imaging direction([0091] describes the scanning performed by the system being done in the direction of the scanning line formed by emitted light from the system. See also Fig. 6, which shows correspondence between mobile objects and the scanning line of the system according to coordinates. Additionally, as the scanning creates image data in the same area as the second image data capture (see Matsumoto Fig. 6 (77) and Matsumoto [0096], which corroborates this being the second image data area) it is understood to disclose a current imaging direction (being the area the second image data is captured))
Matsumoto does not explicitly teach wherein: a stationary terrestrial scanning measuring device. However, it is a measurement system to determine the environment of the device while excluding moving objects from the analysis. It includes several levelling/orienting mechanisms. As best understood, it is a stationary camera.
However, in a similar field of endeavor, Török teaches wherein: a stationary terrestrial scanning measuring device (Fig. 7 (W1) , shows a stationary tripod device used for the capture of terrestrial scenes, by virtue of it imaging an area with objects traveling along the ground. See also [0105], which further describes the capture of data in a position using the system. [0105] further discloses information capture in multiple positions, such as one position (w1), but requires the system be moved to the alternative position (further disclosing the stationary nature of the system))
Török, like Matsumoto, teaches a scanning system that projects light in order to scan its environment in front of the system.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Matsumoto to use a stationary terrestrial scanning measuring device, as taught by Török, to arrive at the claimed invention discussed above. The motivation for the proposed modification would be provide the system a platform for it to image from that can be moved by a user, yet allows it to support itself without user intervention, as is a shown in Török Fig. 7.
Matsumoto, in further view of Török, does not explicitly teach wherein: acquiring multiple sequential live images (I, I1,I2) of the measurement space with the camera, in particular in form of a video stream nor the image processing comprising classifying image content according to defined object classes (Ci) nor a spatial relation of the potentially moving object to a current imaging direction based on image processing of at least part of the acquired images (I, I1,I2), the image processing comprising classifying image content according to defined object classes (Ci). Matsumoto does acquire multiple images over time to detect moving objects (abstract).
However, in a related field of endeavor, Ehala teaches wherein: acquiring multiple sequential live images (I, I1,I2) of the measurement space with the camera, in particular in form of a video stream (col. 3 lines 42-51, discloses the use of video feed data, understood as a video stream, in object detection of a region of interest (understood as a measurement space). Additionally, by virtue of being a video feed , there are understood to be sequential live images (see also Fig. 3b, which shows at least 3 images being captured)) as well as the image processing comprising classifying image content according to defined object classes (Ci) (col. 7 lines 64-67, discloses identification of people as an object class. See also Fig. 3b, a person is identified and a bounding box is used to denote the object of the identified class within the region of interest) as well as a spatial relation of the potentially moving object to a current imaging direction based on image processing of at least part of the acquired images (I, I1,I2), the image processing comprising classifying image content according to defined object classes (Ci) (col. 7 lines 64-67, discloses identification of people as an object class. See also Fig. 3b, a person is identified and a bounding box is used to denote the object of the identified class within the region of interest with consideration of said objects movement (as per the consideration of said objections movement direction (Fig. 3b (372))) with respect to the imaging direction),
Ehala, like Matsumoto, teaches an imaging system that utilizes digital camera equipment to detect objects within a given area in front of the camera.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Matsumoto, in further view of Török, to process video data and classify objects in said data, as taught by Ehala, to arrive at the claimed invention discussed above. The motivation for the proposed modification would be to enable the system to process video data while further allowing it to increase the level information about the imaged environment provided to the user, such as is provided to the user of Ehala, who is shown the location of a classified object within the image frame (see Ehala Fig. 3b).
Masumoto, in view of Török and Ehala does not explicitly teach wherein: estimating a possible interference of the potentially moving object with the capturing of the at least one digital image based on the determined spatial relation, and triggering a reaction of the scanning measuring device in response to a result of the estimating of a possible interference of the potentially moving object with the capturing of the at least one digital image.
However, in a related field of endeavor, Decrop teaches wherein: estimating a possible interference of the potentially moving object with the capturing of the at least one digital image based on the determined spatial relation ([0012] and Fig. 2 disclose the determination of an object affecting image capture within the camera’s field of view due to said object moving into view (indicating a determination of a spatial relationship by determining if the object will pass in front of it)), and triggering a reaction of the scanning measuring device in response to a result of the estimating of a possible interference of the potentially moving object with the capturing of the at least one digital image ([0012] and Fig. 2 indicate the triggering of a corrective measure as a result of determining that the object will come into the camera’s field of view, such as the notification to a user possible advisable actions).
Decrop, like Masumoto, teaches wherein the avoidance of capturing data with respect to an unwanted object with respect to an image based system.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Matsumoto, in further view of Török and Ehala, to estimate interference with image capture, as taught by Decrop, to arrive at the claimed invention discussed above. The motivation for the proposed modification would be to provide the user the ability to address unintended capture of an unwanted object using suggestions they did not have to imagine, as is performed in Ehala [0012] without using memory (Masumoto shows interest in not recording the mobile object in the first image data per Masumoto [0138], which deletes the mobile object).
In re to claim 3 [dependent on claim 1], Matsumoto, in view of Török, Ehala, and Decrop teaches wherein: the defined object classes (Ci) comprise at least a class of moving auto-mobile objects, in particular human beings (Ehala Fig. 3b shows the classification of people (which is further corroborated by col. 17 lines 6-9, which denotes pedestrians as a class of object)), animals and/or vehicles.
The reasons for combination being the same as above.
In re to claim 4 [dependent on claim 1], Matsumoto, in view of Török, Ehala, and Decrop, teaches wherein: the defined object classes (Ci) comprise at least a class of non-moving auto-mobile objects and/or of pictures of moving objects (Ehala Fig. 3b shows the classification of moving people (which is further corroborated by col. 17 lines 6-9, which denotes moving pedestrians as a class of object)) and/or of pictures of auto-mobile objects.
The reasons for combination being the same as above.
In re to claim 5 [dependent on claim 1], Matsumoto, in view of Török, Ehala, and Decrop, teaches wherein: the defined object classes (Ci) (Ehala Fig. 3b, shows the classification of moving people (which is further corroborated by col. 17 lines 6-9, which denotes moving pedestrians as a class of object)) comprise at least a class of potentially moving objects to be ignored for at least one of the steps of determining spatial relation of the potentially moving object to a current imaging direction or to a emission direction (E) (Matsumoto Fig. 8a-8c and [0104] discloses the system reacting to the determination of determining that the mobile object will overlap with the scanning line by temporarily stopping measurement. Thus disclosing the system ignoring the potentially moving object while estimating possible interference) or of estimating a possible interference.
The reasons for combination being the same as above.
In re to claim 9 [dependent on claim 1], Matsumoto teaches wherein: the estimating of a possible interference comprises estimating a future possible interference (Fig. 8a-8c and [0104] discloses the system reacting to the determination of determining that the mobile object will overlap with the scanning line by temporarily stopping measurement. Thus disclosing the estimation of possible interference. Further, this is understood to be a future possible interference due to the fact that the system is making a determination in respect of an area that surrounds the scan line, and per [0104], the system is judging based on speed in relation to the actual scan line. Thus, it is making a future prediction, being the act of predicting what could occur (due to the possibility of the moving object abruptly stopping)).
In re to claim 10 [dependent on claim 9], Matsumoto teaches wherein: the reaction is an automatic pause of the scanning and/or digital image capturing when estimating an imminent possible interference (Fig. 8a-8c and [0104] discloses the system reacting to the determination of determining that the mobile object will overlap with the scanning line by temporarily stopping measurement. This temporary stop is understood as an automatic pause), and optionally an automatic continuation of the scanning or digital image capturing when the moving object has moved a defined distance away from the emission direction (E).
In re to claim 14 [dependent on claim 1], Matsumoto, in view of Török and Chen, teaches wherein: A stationary terrestrial scanning measuring device (Török Fig. 7 (W1) shows a stationary tripod device used for the capture of terrestrial scenes, by virtue of it imaging an area with objects traveling along the ground) comprising an emitting unit for directed emission of radiation as a free beam and at least one camera arranged in known spatial relationship to the emitting unit and thus to an emission direction of the free beam, the scanning measuring device having an automatic coordinative measuring scan functionality (Matsumoto Fig. 6 shows that the system scans an environment according to coordinates, which is understood to be a coordinative scan functionality) configured to execute the method according to claim 1.
The reasons for combination being the same as above.
In re to claim 16 [dependent on claim 1], Matsumoto, in view of Török and Chen, teaches wherein: a computer program product comprising program code which is stored on a non- transitory machine-readable medium, and having computer-executable instructions for performing, particularly when executed on a processing unit (Matsumoto Fig. 3 shows that the system performs processing according to a CPU (understood as a processing unit), thus, it is understood that the processes od determination executed are according to a computer program. Further, per [0107], the system utilizes memory when processing information. Additionally, as a CPU is being utilized to perform processing, memory is understood to be disclosed to execute said processing. Thus, it understood that non-transitory machine readable medium is disclosed by the memory of the system) of a terrestrial scanning measuring device (Török Fig. 7 (W1) shows a stationary tripod device used for the capture of terrestrial scenes, by virtue of it imaging an area with objects traveling along the ground. See also Török [0055] discloses use of computer programing for processes of the system), the method according to claim 1.
The reasons for combination being the same as above.
In re to claim 18 [dependent on claim 1], Matsumoto, in view of Török, Ehala, and Decrop teaches wherein: acquiring said multiple sequential live images (I, I1, I2) of the measurement space in form of a video stream (Ehala col. 3 lines 42-51, discloses the use of video feed data, understood as a video stream).
The reasons for combination are the same as provided above.
Claims 6, 7 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsumoto in view of Török and Ehala, in further view of Decrop.
In re to claim 6 [dependent on claim 1], Matsumoto, in view of Török and Ehala teaches wherein: the estimating of a particular motion event within an imaged area((Fig. 8a-8c and [0104], discloses the system reacting to the determination of determining that the mobile object will overlap with the scanning line by temporarily stopping measurement.
Matsumoto, in view of Török and Ehala does not explicitly teach wherein: performing estimating the possible interference of a possible interference of the potentially moving object with the capturing of the at least one digital image is also based on the class (Ci) the moving object is classed to.
However, in a related field of endeavor, Decrop teaches wherein: performing estimating the possible interference of a possible interference of the potentially moving object with the capturing of the at least one digital image is also based on the class (Ci) the moving object is classed to ([0025] discloses that the system may determine objects (dependent on context) that have been identified as being appropriate for capture. Thus, disclosing consideration of an object’s class when determining a possible interference with image capture).
Decrop, like Masumoto, teaches wherein the avoidance of capturing data with respect to an unwanted object with respect to an image based system.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Matsumoto, in view of Török and Ehala, classifying moving objects, as taught by Decrop, to arrive at the claimed invention discussed above. The motivation for the proposed modification would be to enable the system to reduce activations of image capture corrective measures for certain objects (Masumoto shows interest in what objects are recorded in the first image data per Masumoto [0138], which deletes the mobile object)).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7, 8, 11, 12, 13, 15, and 17 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.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance. The claimed features of dependent claim 7 are not anticipated nor obvious in view of the prior art of record.
Masumoto teaches the exclusion of mobile objects from data capture based on an estimation of potential interference with said data capture. It further outputs a notice to the user signaling presence of such an object in the measurement space. However, it does not indicate that it will show any portion of the object (following classification processes) as a part of the notification. Nor does it provide explicit object classification beyond a determination of an object as a mobile object.
Decrop teaches the notification of a user with respect to a detected object being a potential interference to data capture, while further performing object classification in order to consider the appropriateness of image capture for said object. However, it does not provide image data that has at least a part of the object when performing its notification.
Khandloya teaches the notification of a user that further shows a portion of the detected object. It further sends image data including the detected object. However, its detection of motion is not explicitly in relation to the potential exclusion of said objects from data gathering.
The prior art of record does not anticipate, nor make obvious (in an obvious and reasonable combination) all the limitations of the dependent claim without the use of impermissible hindsight bias.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance. The claimed features of dependent claim 11 are not anticipated nor obvious in view of the prior art of record.
Masumoto teaches the exclusion of mobile objects from data capture based on an estimation of potential interference with said data capture. It further outputs a notice to the user signaling presence of such an object in the measurement space. However, it does not indicate that it will show any portion of the object (following classification processes) as a part of the notification. Nor does it provide explicit object classification beyond a determination of an object as a mobile object.
Decrop teaches the notification of a user with respect to a detected object being a potential interference to data capture, while further performing object classification in order to consider the appropriateness of image capture for said object. However, it does not provide image data that has at least a part of the object when performing its notification.
Khandloya teaches the notification of a user that further shows a portion of the detected object. It further sends image data including the detected object. However, its detection of motion is not explicitly in relation to the detection of a past possible interference. Nor does it explicitly disclose consideration of either an image capture interference or a measurement interference.
The prior art of record does not anticipate, nor make obvious (in an obvious and reasonable combination) all the limitations of the dependent claim without the use of impermissible hindsight bias.
The reasons for allowance of claim 8 are the same as presented in the Non-final rejection of (06/18/2025)
The reasons for allowance of claims 12, as well as its dependent claims 13, 15, and 17 are the same as presented in the Non-final rejection of (06/18/2025)
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEVIN M COOMBER whose telephone number is (571)270-0950. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00am-5:00pm.
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, Gregory Morse can be reached at (571) 272-3838. 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.
/KEVIN M COOMBER/Examiner, Art Unit 2663
/GREGORY A MORSE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2698
Prosecution Insights