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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 06/03/2026 has been entered. Claims 1, 11, 15 and 17 have been amended. Amended claim 11 had the incorrect status identifier of “previously presented”, in non-compliance under 37 CFR § 1.121, but has been treated on its merits. Claims 1-19 are currently pending and have been examined.
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged. As communicated in the notice sent on 08/29/2023, retrieval of the priority document EP22164977.5 was unsuccessful.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments and remarks filed on 06/03/2026 have been fully considered.
Applicant’s amendments overcome the previous objections to the claims.
Applicant’s arguments provided for the 35 U.S.C. §103 rejections of claims 1-19 have been considered but moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: The amendment adds the text “[HP1.1]” in line 9, which appears to be a typographical error. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 11 is objected to because of the following informalities: in line 6, “fixed point and/or contact point of the tool” should read “a fixed point and/or a contact point of the tool” for grammatical reasons.
Claim 15 is objected to because of the following informalities: The amendment adds the text “and/or/or” in line 9, which appears to be a typographical error. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 17 is objected to because of the following informalities: The amendment adds the text “and/or/or” in line 10, which appears to be a typographical error. Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-19 are 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.
Regarding claim 1, line 14 recites “a group comprising a joint and/or a virtual pivot point”. This limitation is indefinite because it is unclear what other alternatives are meant to be encompassed by the open list. See MPEP § 2173.05(h): “A Markush grouping is a closed group of alternatives, i.e., the selection is made from a group “consisting of" (rather than "comprising" or "including") the alternative members. Abbott Labs., 334 F.3d at 1280, 67 USPQ2d at 1196. If a Markush grouping requires a material selected from an open list of alternatives (e.g., selected from the group "comprising" or "consisting essentially of" the recited alternatives), the claim should generally be rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as indefinite because it is unclear what other alternatives are intended to be encompassed by the claim. See In re Kiely, 2022 USPQ2d 532 at 2* (Fed. Cir. 2022) (each independent claim recites "a selection from the group comprising a person, an animal, an animated character, a creature, an alien, a toy, a structure, a vegetable, and a fruit." … (emphasis added). "Given the breadth of variation among the specified alternatives and the use of the open-ended word ‘comprising’ to define the scope of the list, we affirm the Board's conclusion that the pending claims recite improper Markush language and are indefinite under § 112(b).").” For purposes of examination, “comprising” will be read as “consisting of” in this limitation.
Several issues render claim 11 indefinite.
Line 2 recites “marked, color-coded and/or raised measurement points” and line 4 recites “the plurality of measurement points”. It is unclear whether these measurement points are the same or different, and whether one or both of these recitations refer to the “plurality of measurement points” of claim 1.
Line 5 recites “a group”. It is unclear whether the group recited here is the same or different as the group recited in claim 1, line 14.
Lines 4-5 recite “specific points…from a group, the group further comprising…”. This limitation is indefinite because it is unclear what other alternatives are meant to be encompassed by the open list. See MPEP § 2173.05(h). Additionally, the word “further” is unclear, as “a group” has just been introduced, and it is not clear what it already comprises and therefore why it further comprises the items listed in claim 11.
For purposes of examination, the “measurement points” of line 2 will be read as being the same as the “plurality of measurement points” of line 3 and separate from the “plurality of measurement points” of claim 1. “Comprising” will be read as “consisting of”, and the word “further” will not be given patentable weight.
Regarding claim 15, line 9 recites “a group comprising a joint and/or a virtual pivot point”. This limitation is indefinite because it is unclear what other alternatives are meant to be encompassed by the open list. See MPEP § 2173.05(h). For purposes of examination, “comprising” will be read as “consisting of” in this limitation.
Regarding claim 17, line 10 recites “a group comprising a joint and/or a virtual pivot point”. This limitation is indefinite because it is unclear what other alternatives are meant to be encompassed by the open list. See MPEP § 2173.05(h). For purposes of examination, “comprising” will be read as “consisting of” in this limitation.
Claim 18 recites the limitation "the camera of the mobile device" in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, as a camera has not been previously recited in claim 18 or parent claim 1. For purposes of examination, “the camera” will be read as “a camera”.
Dependent claims are likewise rejected.
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.
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 1-5, 8-17 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vesanen et al. (EP-3730702-A1; hereinafter Vesanen) in view of Schulz et al. (WO-2018099755-A1, cited in the IDS dated 07/05/2023; hereinafter Schulz).
Regarding claim 1, Vesanen discloses [Note: what Vesanen fails to disclose is strike-through]
A calibration system for calibrating (see at least [0001]; “The present invention relates to a measuring arrangement relating, for example, to earthworks machines or lifting machines, which measuring arrangement may, for example, be utilized in an individual calibration of each machine.”) a component of a construction machine (see at least [0004]; “A problem relating to the automatic positioning of the work machine and its working tool is, however, variations in the measures or dimensions of the work machines.”), in particular an excavator (see at least [0002]; “Different types of work machines may be utilized at different earth-moving work sites or construction sites for example for moving soil or rock material to another location or to lift materials to be used in the constructions… The work machines like that are for example excavators and mobile cranes.”), a bulldozer, a grader, a drill rig, a pile driver or a diaphragm wall cutter, wherein the component comprises at least one degree of freedom (see at least [0004]; “For example, as regards to excavators wherein there is an upper carriage rotatable relative to a lower carriage, it is very difficult to take into account for example in a positioning of a tip of a bucket a position of a rotation axis of the upper carriage relative to a boom pin that fastens a boom of the excavator to the upper carriage of the excavator.”), comprising:
a (see at least [0043]; “The locator may also be or comprise at least one tachymeter, at least one theodolite or at least one laser scanning device.” The laser scanning device in Vesanen is functionally equivalent to a LIDAR because both use laser light to measure distances and map surfaces or locate objects by calculating the time it takes for reflected light to return.), wherein the LiDAR sensor is configured to detect a plurality of measurement points (see at least [0044]; “The positioning arrangement further comprises at least one first spot to be located. The positioning arrangement thus comprises one first spot or two or more first spots to be located. The feature the first spot refers to a specific point in the machine which can be preferably individually identified in the machine.”) of the component and/or the construction machine (see at least [0044]; “The at least one first spot may thus be one or more selected points at the carriage 2 of the excavator 1 the position(s) of which is/are to be determined during the carrying out of the measuring procedure.”) to determine position information for the plurality of measurement points of the component and/or the construction machine (see at least [0058]; “The method for measuring a three dimensional location and orientation of the center axis of a first axle in relation to the center axis of a second axle comprises attaching at least one first spot to be located by at least one locator and to be rotatable around the first axle; attaching at least one second spot to be located by at least one locator and to be rotatable around the second axle; measuring by the at least one locator a first set of at least three different position data measurements of each of the at least one first spot…”);
wherein on or more specific measurement points of the component and/or the construction machine are selected and/or marked as relevant for calibration (see at least [0009]; “The invention is based on the idea of determining in a work machine a three dimensional location and orientation of a second axle in respect of a first axle. According to an idea of the solution at least one first spot and at least one second spot to be located are selected in the work machine.” See also [0001]; “The present invention relates to a measuring arrangement relating, for example, to earthworks machines or lifting machines, which measuring arrangement may, for example, be utilized in an individual calibration of each machine.”);
a processor configured to determine a 3D model of the component and/or the construction machine based on the position information for the plurality of measurement points (see at least [0060] – [0067], where the processing unit derives the 3D model shown in Figs. 5a – 5c based on the position of the measured spots) and to determine position information and/or distance information associated with the selected and/or marked specific measurement points (see at least [0044]; “The at least one first spot may thus be one or more selected points at the carriage 2 of the excavator 1 the position(s) of which is/are to be determined during the carrying out of the measuring procedure.”) for calibrating a machine controller (see at least [0011]; “The advantage of the invention is that the variation in the dimensions between work machines relating to the location and orientation of a first axle in respect of a second axle may be determined and compensated in an automatic control of the positioning of the working tool of the work machine. In excavators, for example, it may be eliminated the effect of any variation in the measure between a rotation axis of the upper carriage of the excavator and a rotation axis of a boom of the excavator, and thereby to calibrate the control of the excavator for enabling the positioning of the bucket of the excavator more accurately.”).
However, Vesanen does not explicitly teach the laser scanning locator device to be mobile, nor does Vesanen explicitly disclose wherein the one or more specific measurement points are out of a group consisting of a joint and/or a virtual pivot point.
Vesanen teaches an embodiment where the locator is a stereo camera, which is shown to be mobile in Fig. 2 (see camera 23). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the embodiments of Vesanen using alternative sensors for determining the position of the points of interest using similar methods should likewise be mobile.
However, Vesanen does not explicitly disclose wherein the one or more specific measurement points are out of a group consisting of a joint and/or a virtual pivot point.
Vesanen discloses an arrangement for taking depth measurements to calculate the relative location of axles in a work machine, and Schulz is directed to determining a position of an excavator boom by means of a LIDAR-system arranged on an excavator. Schulz teaches:
wherein the one or more specific measurement points are out of a group consisting of a joint (see translation at least [0067]; “As can be seen from Fig. 1, the measuring points 108 are located, for example, at pivot points of the excavator arm 104”) and/or a virtual pivot point;
determine position information and/or distance information associated with the selected and/or marked specific measurement points (see translation at least [0068]; “Part of the emitted laser beams 106 is reflected at the measuring points 108.
These reflected laser beams 106 are received by the device 102 and used to determine the position of the excavator arm 104”) for a machine controller (see translation at least [0040]; “The procedure may further include a step of outputting a control signal to control the excavator using the position of the excavator arm or, additionally or alternatively, the object information. This allows the excavator or excavator arm to be controlled partially or fully automatically.”).
Both Vesanen and Schulz use LiDAR to detect particular points of interest on a construction machine to determine the relative position of different components of the construction machine. Vesanen teaches in [0044] that the point of interest may be “any specific point in the excavator 1 detectable by the one or more locators used in each measuring arrangement may be used to identify a spot to be located” and in [0045] that “The at least one second spot may thus be one or more selected points at the boom 5 of the excavator 1 the position(s) of which is/are to be determined during the carrying out of the measuring procedure.” Schulz teaches that pivot points on the excavator arm are detectable by LiDAR and may be used to determine the position of the excavator arm. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to measure pivot points as a spot of interest in the method of Vesanen. One of ordinary skill would be motivated to measure pivot point position because Vesanen teaches than any detectable point may be used, and Schulz shows that these pivot points are detectable to LiDAR.
Regarding claim 2, Vesanen in view of Schulz teaches the calibration system according to claim 1. Vesanen further teaches:
wherein the position information comprises distance information starting from the LiDAR sensor; and/or
wherein the position information comprises 3D position information in space (see at least [0078]; “According to an embodiment the measuring arrangement is further configured to determine at least one 3D-point of the earthworks machine in three dimensions with respect to a determined point in the second axle, and the position data gathering unit is further configured to gather a third set of at least one position data measurement of the at least one 3D-point to be located with respect to at least one of the at least one set of the position data measurements and the information rendered from the at least one set of the position data measurements.”); and/or
wherein the position information comprises 3D position information in a coordinate system defined by the LiDAR sensor.
Regarding claim 3, Vesanen in view of Schulz teaches the calibration system according to claim 1. Vesanen further teaches:
wherein the 3D model comprises depth information; and/or
wherein a 3D position of each component is determined by at least two measurement points of the component (see at least [0061]; “Secondly, further referring to Figure 5a, the processing unit is configured to define a second plane P2' based on each different position measurements in the second set of position data measurements. The second set of the position data measurements of Figure 5a comprises three position data measurements M21, M22, M23 of one second spot, i.e. a specific point in the boom 5, such as the tag 21 in the first boom part 5a, each position data measurement M21, M22, M23 being carried out at different angle of the rotation of the boom 5 about the rotation axis 9 of the boom pin 8 as shown schematically in Figure 1. The position data measurements M21, M22, M23 may be carried out by the positioning arrangement of Figure 4 including the stereo camera arrangement 22 shown schematically in Figure 2. The second plane P2' is a plane which is determined by the second set of the position data measurements M21, M22, M23 forming three vectors between the position data measurements M21, M22 and M23, rendering vectors M21 to M22, M22 to M23 and M23 to M21, for example. These vectors define plane P2' that is perpendicular to the centre axis of the second axle, i.e. the boom pin 8.”).
Regarding claim 4, Vesanen in view of Schulz teaches the calibration system according to claim 1. Vesanen further teaches:
wherein the LiDAR sensor is configured to detect the measurement points in a plurality of orientations of the LiDAR sensor to the component and/or construction machine; and/or
wherein detecting the plurality of measurement points is performed in one pose of the component and/or the construction machine; or wherein detecting the measurement points is performed in a plurality of poses of the component and/or the construction machine (see at least [0061]; “Secondly, further referring to Figure 5a, the processing unit is configured to define a second plane P2' based on each different position measurements in the second set of position data measurements. The second set of the position data measurements of Figure 5a comprises three position data measurements M21, M22, M23 of one second spot, i.e. a specific point in the boom 5, such as the tag 21 in the first boom part 5a, each position data measurement M21, M22, M23 being carried out at different angle of the rotation of the boom 5 about the rotation axis 9 of the boom pin 8 as shown schematically in Figure 1.”).
Regarding claim 5, Vesanen in view of Schulz teaches the calibration system according to claim 1. Vesanen further teaches:
wherein the LiDAR sensor is configured to determine position information for the plurality of measurement points of a plurality of components comprising a plurality of degrees of freedom; and/or
wherein the processor is configured to determine the 3D model comprising the plurality of components (see at least [0059]; “According to an embodiment the three dimensional location and orientation of the centre axis of the first axle, i.e. the rotation axis 4 of the rotation axle 3 of the upper carriage 2b, with respect to the centre axis of the second axle, i.e. the rotation axis 9 of the boom pin 8, may be determined with the following procedure, referring especially to Figures 5a to 5c but also to Figures 1, 2, 3a to 3c and 4. The procedure utilizes vector analysis and is carried out by the processing or calculation unit, such as the control unit 14.”).
Regarding claim 8, Vesanen in view of Schulz teaches the calibration system according to claim 1. Schulz further teaches:
wherein the LiDAR sensor (see translation at least [0010]; “…the approach presented here comprises a method for determining the position of an excavator arm using a LIDAR system…”) is configured to determine a point cloud for the plurality of measurement points (see translation at least [0127] – [0129]; “The advantages of the approach described here are that, due to the lower robustness requirements for the sensors, more sensitive sensor technologies can be used; no adaptations of the sensors to excavator arm and bucket designs are necessary; sensor mounting and housing variance, and thus costs, can be reduced; no wiring of the sensors via the bucket, excavator arm and the associated joints to the cab or the slewing frame is required; direct measurement of the excavator arm and bucket positions is enabled due to the high-resolution imaging method; additional acquisition of the surrounding scene and, if applicable, processed objects or used tools is possible without additional effort using the spatial field of view; additional acquisition of the environment for [0128] collision avoidance, excavator arm guidance and driver visual support via object formation from a 3D point cloud due to the high [0129] angular resolution is enabled, the swiveling of the field of view or image focusing can be ensured by adaptive optics and deflection units, and background light can be better suppressed due to the possibility of optical filtering of the background light.”).
It would have been obvious to combine Vesanen and Schulz for the reasons given regarding claim 1.
Regarding claim 9, Vesanen in view of Schulz teaches the calibration system according to claim 1. Vesanen further teaches:
wherein the LiDAR sensor is part of a LiDAR scanner (see at least [0043]; “The locator may also be or comprise at least one tachymeter, at least one theodolite or at least one laser scanning device.” The laser scanning device in Vesanen is functionally equivalent to a LIDAR because both use laser light to measure distances and map surfaces or locate objects by calculating the time it takes for reflected light to return.); and/or
wherein the LiDAR sensor is part of a LiDAR scanner configured to emit light in correspondence with a dot grid.
Regarding claim 10, Vesanen in view of Schulz teaches the calibration system according to claim 1. Schulz further teaches:
wherein the LiDAR sensor is configured to perform a distance measurement based on a light reflection and/or a time-of-flight measurement of a light reflection (see translation at least [0012] – [0016]; “The process includes the following steps: [0013] Emitting multiple laser beams to target multiple [0014] …measuring points on the excavator arm; [0015] Receiving laser beams reflected from the measuring points; and [0016] Determining the position of the excavator arm relative to at least one reference point assigned to the excavator using the reflected laser beams.”).
It would have been obvious to combine Vesanen and Schulz for the reasons given regarding claim 1.
Regarding claim 11, Vesanen in view of Schulz teaches the calibration system according to claim 1. Vesanen further teaches:
wherein the LiDAR sensor is configured to determine marked, color-coded and/or raised measurement points (see at least [0026]; “According to an embodiment of the measuring arrangement the at least one first spot and the at least one second spot are at least one of: tags, prisms and antennas to be located by at least one of the at least one locator, wherein the at least one locator is at least one of: at least one stereo camera arrangement, at least one tachymeter, at least one theodolite, at least one of laser scanning device, a satellite-based positioning system GNSS and any network where location based services using triangulation is possible.”) arranged on the construction machine or component (see at least [0009]; “According to an idea of the solution at least one first spot and at least one second spot to be located are selected in the work machine.”);
wherein the plurality of measurement points are formed by specific points of the component and/or the construction machine from a group, the group comprising fixed point (see at least Fig. 1; tag 21 is at a fixed point on the boom) and/or contact point of the tool.
Regarding claim 12, Vesanen in view of Schulz teaches the calibration system according to claim 1. Vesanen further teaches:
the calibration system comprising an interface for wireless communication with a machine controller (see at least [0047]; “The position data gathering unit referred above may for example be connected to a stereo camera arrangement 22 via a data communication connection, either wireless or wired, and may reside in the control unit 14. The stereo camera arrangement 22 comprises at least two cameras 23 that are able to determine a 3D position of the tags to be monitored by triangulation when the location and orientation of the at least two cameras 23 in relation to each other are known.” See also [0038]; “The excavator 1 further comprises at least one control unit 14 which is configured to control, in response to received control actions, operations of the excavator 1, such as operations of the carriage 2, the boom 5 and the bucket 11.”).
Regarding claim 13, Vesanen in view of Schulz teaches the calibration system according to claim 1. Vesanen further teaches:
the calibration system comprising a machine controller (see at least [0038]; “The excavator 1 further comprises at least one control unit 14 which is configured to control, in response to received control actions, operations of the excavator 1, such as operations of the carriage 2, the boom 5 and the bucket 11.”) and/or a machine display,
wherein the machine display is configured to calculate and/or display a position and/or positionings of the component based on one or more sensor data for monitoring one or more degrees of freedom while considering the 3D model;
wherein the machine controller is configured to calculate a position and/or positioning of the component based on one or more sensor data for monitoring one or more degrees of freedom while considering the 3D model (see at least [0048]; “Referring to the example disclosed in Figures 1, 2 and 3a to 3c above and in Figures 5a to 5c later, the processing unit may for example be the control unit 14, or reside in the control unit 14, of the excavator 1, whereby the control unit 14 is configured to receive the position data referring to the head of the antenna 16 and the tag 21, and on the basis thereof, to determine the three dimensional location and orientation of the centre axis of the first axle, i.e. the rotation axis 4 of the rotation axle 3 of the upper carriage 2b, with respect to the centre axis of the second axle, i.e. the lifting axis 9 or the rotation axis 9 of the boom pin 8.” Examiner notes that Figs. 5a-5c show 3D models.).
Regarding claim 14, Vesanen in view of Schulz teaches the calibration system according to claim 1. Vesanen further teaches:
A construction machine, in particular an excavator (see at least Fig. 1, excavator 1), bulldozer, grader, drilling rig, pile driver or diaphragm wall cutter, comprising a calibration system (see at least [0040]; “The measuring arrangement disclosed next is intended to eliminate the effect of any variation in the measure between the rotation axis 4 of the upper carriage 2b and the rotation axis 9 of the boom 5, and in that sense to calibrate the control of the excavator 1.”), and a machine controller (see at least [0038]; “The excavator 1 further comprises at least one control unit 14 which is configured to control, in response to received control actions, operations of the excavator 1, such as operations of the carriage 2, the boom 5 and the bucket 11.”).
Regarding claim 15, Vesanen teaches:
A method for calibrating (see at least [0001]; “The present invention relates to a measuring arrangement relating, for example, to earthworks machines or lifting machines, which measuring arrangement may, for example, be utilized in an individual calibration of each machine.”) a component of a construction machine (see at least [0004]; “A problem relating to the automatic positioning of the work machine and its working tool is, however, variations in the measures or dimensions of the work machines.”), in particular an excavator (see at least [0002]; “Different types of work machines may be utilized at different earth-moving work sites or construction sites for example for moving soil or rock material to another location or to lift materials to be used in the constructions… The work machines like that are for example excavators and mobile cranes.”), in particular an excavator (see at least [0002]; “Different types of work machines may be utilized at different earth-moving work sites or construction sites for example for moving soil or rock material to another location or to lift materials to be used in the constructions… The work machines like that are for example excavators and mobile cranes.”), a bulldozer, a grader, a drill rig, a pile driver or a diaphragm wall cutter, wherein the component comprises at least one degree of freedom (see at least [0004]; “For example, as regards to excavators wherein there is an upper carriage rotatable relative to a lower carriage, it is very difficult to take into account for example in a positioning of a tip of a bucket a position of a rotation axis of the upper carriage relative to a boom pin that fastens a boom of the excavator to the upper carriage of the excavator.”), comprising:
detecting, by a LiDAR sensor of a (see at least [0043]; “The locator may also be or comprise at least one tachymeter, at least one theodolite or at least one laser scanning device.” The laser scanning device in Vesanen is functionally equivalent to a LIDAR because both use laser light to measure distances and map surfaces or locate objects by calculating the time it takes for reflected light to return.), a plurality of measurement points (see at least [0044]; “The positioning arrangement further comprises at least one first spot to be located. The positioning arrangement thus comprises one first spot or two or more first spots to be located. The feature the first spot refers to a specific point in the machine which can be preferably individually identified in the machine.”) of the component and/or the construction machine (see at least [0044]; “The at least one first spot may thus be one or more selected points at the carriage 2 of the excavator 1 the position(s) of which is/are to be determined during the carrying out of the measuring procedure.”) to determine position information for the plurality of measurement points of the component and/or the construction machine (see at least [0058]; “The method for measuring a three dimensional location and orientation of the center axis of a first axle in relation to the center axis of a second axle comprises attaching at least one first spot to be located by at least one locator and to be rotatable around the first axle; attaching at least one second spot to be located by at least one locator and to be rotatable around the second axle; measuring by the at least one locator a first set of at least three different position data measurements of each of the at least one first spot…”); wherein on or more specific measurement points of the component and/or the construction machine are selected and/or marked as relevant for calibration (see at least [0009]; “The invention is based on the idea of determining in a work machine a three dimensional location and orientation of a second axle in respect of a first axle. According to an idea of the solution at least one first spot and at least one second spot to be located are selected in the work machine.” See also [0001]; “The present invention relates to a measuring arrangement relating, for example, to earthworks machines or lifting machines, which measuring arrangement may, for example, be utilized in an individual calibration of each machine.”);
determining a 3D model of the component and/or the construction machine based on the position information for the plurality of measurement points (see at least [0060] – [0067], where the processing unit derives the 3D model shown in Figs. 5a – 5c based on the position of the measured spots) and to determine position information and/or distance information associated with the selected and/or marked specific measurement points (see at least [0044]; “The at least one first spot may thus be one or more selected points at the carriage 2 of the excavator 1 the position(s) of which is/are to be determined during the carrying out of the measuring procedure.”) for calibrating a machine controller (see at least [0011]; “The advantage of the invention is that the variation in the dimensions between work machines relating to the location and orientation of a first axle in respect of a second axle may be determined and compensated in an automatic control of the positioning of the working tool of the work machine. In excavators, for example, it may be eliminated the effect of any variation in the measure between a rotation axis of the upper carriage of the excavator and a rotation axis of a boom of the excavator, and thereby to calibrate the control of the excavator for enabling the positioning of the bucket of the excavator more accurately.”).
However, Vesanen does not explicitly teach the laser scanning locator device to be mobile, nor does Vesanen explicitly disclose wherein the one or more specific measurement points are out of a group consisting of a joint and/or a virtual pivot point.
Vesanen teaches an embodiment where the locator is a stereo camera, which is shown to be mobile in Fig. 2 (see camera 23). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the embodiments of Vesanen using alternative sensors for determining the position of the points of interest using similar methods should likewise be mobile.
However, Vesanen does not explicitly disclose wherein the one or more specific measurement points are out of a group consisting of a joint and/or a virtual pivot point.
Vesanen discloses an arrangement for taking depth measurements to calculate the relative location of axles in a work machine, and Schulz is directed to determining a position of an excavator boom by means of a LIDAR-system arranged on an excavator. Schulz teaches:
wherein the one or more specific measurement points are out of a group consisting of a joint (see translation at least [0067]; “As can be seen from Fig. 1, the measuring points 108 are located, for example, at pivot points of the excavator arm 104”) and/or a virtual pivot point;
determine position information and/or distance information associated with the selected and/or marked specific measurement points (see translation at least [0068]; “Part of the emitted laser beams 106 is reflected at the measuring points 108.
These reflected laser beams 106 are received by the device 102 and used to determine the position of the excavator arm 104”) for a machine controller (see translation at least [0040]; “The procedure may further include a step of outputting a control signal to control the excavator using the position of the excavator arm or, additionally or alternatively, the object information. This allows the excavator or excavator arm to be controlled partially or fully automatically.”).
Both Vesanen and Schulz use LiDAR to detect particular points of interest on a construction machine to determine the relative position of different components of the construction machine. Vesanen teaches in [0044] that the point of interest may be “any specific point in the excavator 1 detectable by the one or more locators used in each measuring arrangement may be used to identify a spot to be located” and in [0045] that “The at least one second spot may thus be one or more selected points at the boom 5 of the excavator 1 the position(s) of which is/are to be determined during the carrying out of the measuring procedure.” Schulz teaches that pivot points on the excavator arm are detectable by LiDAR and may be used to determine the position of the excavator arm. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to measure pivot points as a spot of interest in the method of Vesanen. One of ordinary skill would be motivated to measure pivot point position because Vesanen teaches than any detectable point may be used, and Schulz shows that these pivot points are detectable to LiDAR.
Regarding claim 16, Vesanen in view of Schulz teaches the method of claim 15. Vesanen further teaches:
wherein detecting comprises recording the component and/or the construction machine by means of a camera of the mobile device; and/or
wherein the method comprising calculating and/or displaying a position and/or positioning of the component based on one or more sensor data for monitoring one or more degrees of freedom while considering the 3D model (see at least [0048]; “Referring to the example disclosed in Figures 1, 2 and 3a to 3c above and in Figures 5a to 5c later, the processing unit may for example be the control unit 14, or reside in the control unit 14, of the excavator 1, whereby the control unit 14 is configured to receive the position data referring to the head of the antenna 16 and the tag 21, and on the basis thereof, to determine the three dimensional location and orientation of the centre axis of the first axle, i.e. the rotation axis 4 of the rotation axle 3 of the upper carriage 2b, with respect to the centre axis of the second axle, i.e. the lifting axis 9 or the rotation axis 9 of the boom pin 8.” Examiner notes that Figs. 5a-5c show 3D models.).
Regarding claim 17, Vesanen teaches:
(see at least [0001]; “The present invention relates to a measuring arrangement relating, for example, to earthworks machines or lifting machines, which measuring arrangement may, for example, be utilized in an individual calibration of each machine.”) a component of a construction machine (see at least [0004]; “A problem relating to the automatic positioning of the work machine and its working tool is, however, variations in the measures or dimensions of the work machines.”), in particular an excavator (see at least [0002]; “Different types of work machines may be utilized at different earth-moving work sites or construction sites for example for moving soil or rock material to another location or to lift materials to be used in the constructions… The work machines like that are for example excavators and mobile cranes.”), a bulldozer, a grader, a drill rig, a pile driver or a diaphragm wall cutter, wherein the component comprises at least one degree of freedom (see at least [0004]; “For example, as regards to excavators wherein there is an upper carriage rotatable relative to a lower carriage, it is very difficult to take into account for example in a positioning of a tip of a bucket a position of a rotation axis of the upper carriage relative to a boom pin that fastens a boom of the excavator to the upper carriage of the excavator.”), comprising:
detecting, by a LiDAR sensor of a (see at least [0043]; “The locator may also be or comprise at least one tachymeter, at least one theodolite or at least one laser scanning device.” The laser scanning device in Vesanen is functionally equivalent to a LIDAR because both use laser light to measure distances and map surfaces or locate objects by calculating the time it takes for reflected light to return.), a plurality of measurement points (see at least [0044]; “The positioning arrangement further comprises at least one first spot to be located. The positioning arrangement thus comprises one first spot or two or more first spots to be located. The feature the first spot refers to a specific point in the machine which can be preferably individually identified in the machine.”) of the component and/or the construction machine (see at least [0044]; “The at least one first spot may thus be one or more selected points at the carriage 2 of the excavator 1 the position(s) of which is/are to be determined during the carrying out of the measuring procedure.”) to determine position information for the plurality of measurement points of the component and/or the construction machine (see at least [0058]; “The method for measuring a three dimensional location and orientation of the center axis of a first axle in relation to the center axis of a second axle comprises attaching at least one first spot to be located by at least one locator and to be rotatable around the first axle; attaching at least one second spot to be located by at least one locator and to be rotatable around the second axle; measuring by the at least one locator a first set of at least three different position data measurements of each of the at least one first spot…”); wherein on or more specific measurement points of the component and/or the construction machine are selected and/or marked as relevant for calibration (see at least [0009]; “The invention is based on the idea of determining in a work machine a three dimensional location and orientation of a second axle in respect of a first axle. According to an idea of the solution at least one first spot and at least one second spot to be located are selected in the work machine.” See also [0001]; “The present invention relates to a measuring arrangement relating, for example, to earthworks machines or lifting machines, which measuring arrangement may, for example, be utilized in an individual calibration of each machine.”);
determining a 3D model of the component and/or the construction machine based on the position information for the plurality of measurement points (see at least [0060] – [0067], where the processing unit derives the 3D model shown in Figs. 5a – 5c based on the position of the measured spots) and to determine position information and/or distance information associated with the selected and/or marked specific measurement points (see at least [0044]; “The at least one first spot may thus be one or more selected points at the carriage 2 of the excavator 1 the position(s) of which is/are to be determined during the carrying out of the measuring procedure.”) for calibrating a machine controller (see at least [0011]; “The advantage of the invention is that the variation in the dimensions between work machines relating to the location and orientation of a first axle in respect of a second axle may be determined and compensated in an automatic control of the positioning of the working tool of the work machine. In excavators, for example, it may be eliminated the effect of any variation in the measure between a rotation axis of the upper carriage of the excavator and a rotation axis of a boom of the excavator, and thereby to calibrate the control of the excavator for enabling the positioning of the bucket of the excavator more accurately.”),
However, Vesanen does not explicitly teach the laser scanning locator device to be mobile, nor does Vesanen explicitly disclose:
A non-transitory digital storage medium having a computer program stored thereon to perform a method when said computer program is run by a computer; or
Wherein the one or more specific measurement points are out of a group consisting of a joint and/or a virtual pivot point.
Vesanen teaches an embodiment where the locator is a stereo camera, which is shown to be mobile in Fig. 2 (see camera 23). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the embodiments of Vesanen using alternative sensors for determining the position of the points of interest using similar methods should likewise be mobile.
However, Vesanen does not explicitly disclose wherein the one or more specific measurement points are out of a group consisting of a joint and/or a virtual pivot point.
Vesanen discloses an arrangement for taking depth measurements to calculate the relative location of axles in a work machine, and Schulz is directed to determining a position of an excavator boom by means of a LIDAR-system arranged on an excavator. Schulz teaches:
A non-transitory digital storage medium having a computer program stored thereon to perform a method when said computer program is run by a computer (see translation at least [0047]; “A computer program product or computer program with program code that can be stored on a machine-readable carrier or storage medium such as semiconductor memory, hard disk memory, or optical memory, and that can be used to execute, implement, and/or control the steps of the procedure according to one of the above, is also advantageous.”);
and
wherein the one or more specific measurement points are out of a group consisting of a joint (see translation at least [0067]; “As can be seen from Fig. 1, the measuring points 108 are located, for example, at pivot points of the excavator arm 104”) and/or a virtual pivot point;
determine position information and/or distance information associated with the selected and/or marked specific measurement points (see translation at least [0068]; “Part of the emitted laser beams 106 is reflected at the measuring points 108.
These reflected laser beams 106 are received by the device 102 and used to determine the position of the excavator arm 104”) for a machine controller (see translation at least [0040]; “The procedure may further include a step of outputting a control signal to control the excavator using the position of the excavator arm or, additionally or alternatively, the object information. This allows the excavator or excavator arm to be controlled partially or fully automatically.”).
Both Vesanen and Schulz use LiDAR to detect particular points of interest on a construction machine to determine the relative position of different components of the construction machine. Vesanen teaches in [0044] that the point of interest may be “any specific point in the excavator 1 detectable by the one or more locators used in each measuring arrangement may be used to identify a spot to be located” and in [0045] that “The at least one second spot may thus be one or more selected points at the boom 5 of the excavator 1 the position(s) of which is/are to be determined during the carrying out of the measuring procedure.” Schulz teaches that pivot points on the excavator arm are detectable by LiDAR and may be used to determine the position of the excavator arm. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to measure pivot points as a spot of interest in the method of Vesanen. One of ordinary skill would be motivated to measure pivot point position because Vesanen teaches than any detectable point may be used, and Schulz shows that these pivot points are detectable to LiDAR. It would furthermore be obvious to implement these methods on a computer, as is taught to be advantageous by Schulz (see again translation [0047]).
Regarding claim 19, Vesanen in view of Schulz teaches the calibration system of claim 1. Vesanen further teaches:
wherein at least two measurement points per component are used to determine the 3D orientation of the component in space (see at least [0061]; “Secondly, further referring to Figure 5a, the processing unit is configured to define a second plane P2' based on each different position measurements in the second set of position data measurements. The second set of the position data measurements of Figure 5a comprises three position data measurements M21, M22, M23 of one second spot, i.e. a specific point in the boom 5, such as the tag 21 in the first boom part 5a, each position data measurement M21, M22, M23 being carried out at different angle of the rotation of the boom 5 about the rotation axis 9 of the boom pin 8 as shown schematically in Figure 1. The position data measurements M21, M22, M23 may be carried out by the positioning arrangement of Figure 4 including the stereo camera arrangement 22 shown schematically in Figure 2. The second plane P2' is a plane which is determined by the second set of the position data measurements M21, M22, M23 forming three vectors between the position data measurements M21, M22 and M23, rendering vectors M21 to M22, M22 to M23 and M23 to M21, for example. These vectors define plane P2' that is perpendicular to the centre axis of the second axle, i.e. the boom pin 8.”).
Claims 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vesanen in view of Schulz, further in view of Yan et al. (US-11210863-B1; hereinafter Yan).
Regarding claim 6, Vesanen in view of Schulz teaches the calibration system according to claim 1. However, Vesanen does not teach:
wherein the mobile device is formed by a smart device, smartphone, or tablet PC.
Vesanen uses a locator device comprising a laser scanner to measure the position of specific points on a work machine, and Yan is directed to real-time object placement guidance in augmented reality experience, in particular by sensing an object in the physical environment. Yan teaches:
wherein the mobile device is formed by a smart device, smartphone, or tablet PC (see at least col. 25, lines 12-33; “FIG. 5 illustrates a block diagram of an example of a computing element 500 (for example, the mobile device 102, mobile device 202, mobile device 302, one or more devices 404, online retail store 428, or any other element described herein that may be used to perform processing of any sort) or system upon which any one or more of the techniques (e.g., methodologies) discussed herein may be performed… The computing element 500 may be a server, a personal computer (PC), a smart home device, a tablet PC, a set-top box (STB), a personal digital assistant (PDA), a mobile telephone, a wearable computer device, a web appliance, a network router, a switch or bridge, or any machine capable of executing instructions (sequential or otherwise) that specify actions to be taken by that machine, such as a base station.”).
Vesanen uses a locator device comprising a laser scanner to measure the position of specific points on a work machine, and Yan uses a mobile device comprising LiDAR (see col. 3, line 42) to create a virtual representation of an object. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the mobile device of Yan to perform the functions of the locator device of Vesanen. Such a modification would have a reasonable expectation of success because both devices use laser-based technologies to map points in three-dimensional space. One of ordinary skill would be motivated to use the mobile device taught by Yan for the measurements of Vesanen due to the convenience gained by the portability of a mobile device.
Regarding claim 7, Vesanen in view of Schulz teaches the calibration system according to claim 1. However, Vesanen does not explicitly teach:
wherein detecting comprises recording the component and/or the construction machine by means of a camera in the mobile device; and/or
wherein the mobile device comprises a human-machine interface via which one or more measurement points can be defined and/or marked by a user; and/or
wherein the mobile device comprises a human-machine interface configured to provide an indication to a user regarding the orientation of the LiDAR sensor.
Yan teaches:
wherein detecting comprises recording the component and/or the construction machine by means of a camera in the mobile device (see at least col. 3, lines 32-43; “The pre-processing phase may begin by an application including an augmented reality module (also referred to herein as system) accessing a camera of the user's mobile device so that it may generate an user interface that may display a real-time view captured by the camera to the user through the display. It should be noted that although reference may be made to a camera of the device herein, the device may use any other sensor to capture data used for any of the purposes herein as well. For example, the mobile device may use a LIDAR sensor to capture data about the environment instead of, or in addition to, a camera of the mobile device.”); and/or
wherein the mobile device comprises a human-machine interface via which one or more measurement points can be defined and/or marked by a user; and/or
wherein the mobile device comprises a human-machine interface configured to provide an indication to a user regarding the orientation of the LiDAR sensor.
Vesanen uses a locator device comprising a laser scanner to measure the position of specific points on a work machine, and Yan uses a mobile device comprising LiDAR (see col. 3, line 42) to create a virtual representation of an object. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the mobile device of Yan to perform the functions of the locator device of Vesanen. Such a modification would have a reasonable expectation of success because both devices use laser-based technologies to map points in three-dimensional space. One of ordinary skill would be motivated to use the mobile device taught by Yan for the measurements of Vesanen due to the convenience of the real-time display available through the device of Yan (see Yan at least col. 3, line 37).
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vesanen in view of Schulz, further in view of Wells et al. (US-12354219-B1; hereinafter Wells).
Regarding claim 18, Vesanen in view of Schulz teaches the calibration system of claim 1. However, Vesanen does not explicitly teach:
wherein the camera of the mobile device is used to select 2D points in an image, and the processor projects corresponding LiDAR sensor values to determine 3D positions of the selected measurement points.
Vesanen discloses an arrangement for taking depth measurements to calculate the relative location of axles in a work machine, and Wells is directed generating measurable 3D models using camera and LIDAR scans. Wells teaches:
wherein the camera of the mobile device is used to select 2D points in an image, and the processor projects corresponding LiDAR sensor values to determine 3D positions of the selected measurement points (see at least col. 10, line 63 – col. 11, line5; “The remote user may use a “virtual measuring tape” to measure distances using the combined LIDAR point cloud location data and the visual images as shown in FIG. 6. As discussed above, this can be done accurately by the user selecting a starting location and subsequently selecting the ending location for measurement. The data may also be used to present 2-dimensional and 3-dimensional measurements to allow the user to access square footage and volume information about different spaces.”).
Vesanen uses a locator device comprising either a stereo camera or a laser scanner to measure the position of specific points on a work machine, and Wells uses a camera and LIDAR to extract 3D measurements of specific points in an industrial facility. Both use mobile instruments to measure their targets (compare Wells Fig. 1, combined visual camera and LIDAR instrument 100 and Vesanen Fig. 2, camera 23). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the device of Wells as the locator in the method of Vesanen. One of ordinary skill would be motivated to use the device taught by Wells as the locator of Vesanen in order to fuse LIDAR and camera images to create a measurable 3D model, as taught by Wells (see at least Abs).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Ashley B. Raynal whose telephone number is (703)756-4546. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8 AM - 4 PM.
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, Vladimir Magloire can be reached at (571) 270-5144. 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.
/ASHLEY BROWN RAYNAL/Examiner, Art Unit 3648
/OLUMIDE AJIBADE AKONAI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3648
Prosecution Insights