CTNF 18/227,844 CTNF 96208 Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. This is the first office action on the merits and is responsive to the papers filed 07/28/2023. Claims 1-16 are currently pending and examined below. Priority Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statement submitted by Applicant is in compliance with the provision of 37 CFR 1.97, 1.98 and MPEP § 609. It has been placed in the application file and the information referred to therein has been considered as to the merits. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 07-30-02 AIA 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. 07-34-01 Claims 5-7 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. Claim 5,” the operator” in line 5 lacks antecedent basis. Claim 6,” the coarse” in line 7 lacks antecedent basis. Claim 7 is rejected due to claim dependency. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 1-2, 4, 8, 10-12, 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Metzler et al. (US 20160187130 A1, “Metzler”) in view of Mayster et al. (US 20210240762 A1, “Mayster”) . Regarding claim 1, Metzler teaches a geodetic survey instrument comprising a targeting unit, configured to target an object in an environment and to provide a targeting data measurement of the targeted object, an imaging sensor, wherein the optical axis of the imaging sensor being referenceable to a targeting direction of the targeting unit, and a computing unit, an automatic stationing functionality (Metzler teaches a geodetic surveying device having a control and evaluation unit , a structure arranged on a base , a sighting unit with laser beam emission and laser range finding functionality , angle measurement functionality , and a unit for recording images of the environment ([0013]. See also, FIG. 1, ([0046])) being configured for providing the automatic execution of: acquiring an image of the environment by the imaging sensor in a first pose of the instrument. Metzler teaches that a first image of the environment is recorded from the first deployment (FIG.2a, [0051]; In a step 10, the first image of the environment is recorded at the first deployment S1), creating or updating a catalog of referencing features based on the image (Metzler teaches extracting image features from the environment images and matching them later, including point features, line features, planes, descriptors, and other extracted features [0024]-[0026], [0051]-[0052], [0063], [0067]. Although Metzler does not use exact phrase “catalog of referencing features,” Metzler’s extracted and stored image features used for subsequent matching teach or at least suggest maintaining a feature set based on the image.), and in a first pose of the instrument providing measurement data for a first set of targeting data regarding targeting directions of the features in the first set of features (Metzler teaches determining the directions to measurement environment points corresponding to corresponding image elements, from the first deployment . FIG. 2a. [0051] In a step 10, the first image of the environment is recorded at the first deployment S1)), providing the first set of targeting data and assigning the targeting directions in the first set of targeting data to the respective features of the first set of features. Metzler teaches that corresponding image elements correspond to common measurement environment points, and the directions are determined to those points/features (FIG. 2a, [0051], In step 13 the directions in relation to measurement environment points, which are imaged in the first and in the second image of the environment by corresponding image elements, are determined in the internal reference system of the surveying device 1. See also, [0024]-[0027], [0070].), performing a relocation of the instrument (Metzler teaches displacement/offset between the first deployment and second deployment in the same environment [0004], [0015], [0049]-[0051].), in a second pose of the instrument (FIG. 1, [0046]; second deployment S2 ) providing measurement data for a second set of targeting data regarding targeting directions of the features of the second set of features. Metzler teaches determining the directions to corresponding points from the second deployment (FIG. 2a, [0051], In a step 11, the second image of the environment is recorded at the second deployment S2. See also, [0012], [0027], [0070].), providing the second set of targeting data and assigning the targeting directions in the second set of targeting data to the respective features of the second set of features (FIG.2a, [0051], In step 13 the directions in relation to measurement environment points, which are imaged in the first and in the second image of the environment by corresponding image elements, are determined in the internal reference system of the surveying device 1.), wherein at least one of the first and the second set of targeting data further comprising data regarding distances of the features of the respective set of features from the survey instrument. Metzler teaches determining a scaling factor using a precise distance measurement to at least one corresponding measurement environment point, preferably by laser optical means.(FIG. 2a, [0051], Recording is respectively brought about by a unit 2 for recording an image of the environment, e.g. a digital camera with a position-sensitive detector, an RIM camera or a laser scanning module, which is comprised by the surveying device 1……….This is respectively carried out for the first position P1 with the first orientation O1 and for the second position P2 with the second orientation O2. Hence, using this, the directions of such measurement environment points are known in relation to the first deployment S1 or the first local reference system L1 and in relation to the second deployment S2 or the second local reference system L2. Moreover, a scaling factor, i.e. the image scale, is determined in a step 14. See also, [0012], [0028], [0071]- [0072]), and determining a fine pose of the second pose relative to the first pose based on the first and second set of targeting data. Metzler teaches precisely determining the position offset and orientation offset between the second and first deployments based on the directions and scaling factor (FIG. 2a, [0051], Step 15). Metzler fails to explicitly teach but Mayster teaches calculating for each referencing feature a score of applicability by the computing unit, wherein the score of applicability characterizing an identifiability and/or measurability of the features in an image acquired from different locations by the imaging sensor (Mayster teaches identifying landmarks/features that satisfy entropic criteria associated with localized prominence , including rarity/infrequency, distinctiveness ,prominence, persistence, and visibility [0032]-[0038],[0144]-[0148].Mayster also teaches a confidence score for each feature and states the score may be based on the number of different perspectives from which the feature has been viewed and/or recency [0039]-[0041], [0161]-[0165].), selecting a first set of features comprising a plurality of the features from the catalog of referencing features fulfilling a selection criterion regarding at least the score of applicability by the computing unit and, in particular further regarding a spatial distribution of the features in the first set of features (Mayster teaches selecting landmarks based on entropic criteria, confidence score, localized prominence, rarity, and also determining clusters of features having a common semantic type [0042], [0166]-[0167]. ), selecting a second set of features from the first set of features by the computing unit based on the score of applicability for each of the features (Maysler again teaches selecting landmarks/features based on entropic criteria, confidence score, localized prominence, and visibility from a vantage point [0032]-[0044], [0149]-[0151], [0169]-[0171].), It would have been obvious to use Maysler’s score/confidence/prominence-based landmark selection in Metzler’s relocation/resection process so that the features chosen for the first and second targeting sets are those most likely to remain distinctive, visible, and reliably re-identifiable across viewpoints, thereby improving robustness and reducing failed matches in Metzler’s known first-deployment/second-deployment offset determination process. Regarding claim 2, Metzler in view of Mayster, teaches the survey instrument according to claim 1further comprising a base unit (Metzler teaches a surveying device with a structure arranged on a base [0013]. See FIG. 1, claim 39), a support unit being mounted on the base and configured to be rotatable relative to the base by a motorized axis (Metzler teaches a structure swivelable about a swivel axis and automated/motorized rotation for image capture and targeting/alignment [0013], [0017], [0033]-[0034].), and a first angle sensor configured to measure a rotation angle of the support unit (Metzler teaches angle measurement functionality for precisely registering at least one swivel angle defined by the relative swivel position of the structure [0013]. See FIG. 1, [0046], claim 39), the targeting unit being mounted on the support unit and being tiltable around a motorized tilting axis (Metzler teaches a sighting unit that is automatically alignable by motor control, and also discusses automatic rotation/alignment of the image-recording unit/surveying device [0017], [0028], [0033]-[0034].), wherein the instrument comprising a second angle sensor configured to measure the tilting angle of the targeting unit relative to the support unit (Metzler teaches angle measurement functionality sufficient to measure direction to measurement points, and later describes two-angle measurement for point positioning [0013], [0074].), and the targeting unit comprising a beam exit of a distance measuring beam of a distance meter, wherein the measuring beam of the distance meter defining the targeting direction (Metzler teaches a sighting unit with a unit for emitting a laser beam and a laser range finding functionality [0013]. See FIG 1, claim 39). Regarding claim 4, Metzler in view of Mayster, teaches the survey instrument according to claim 1 wherein the imaging sensor being arranged and configured for use in a sighting unit of the targeting unit for aligning the targeting direction onto a target to be measured (Metzler teaches a device having both a unit for recording images of the environment and a sighting unit , and teaches automatic alignment of the sighting unit to a corresponding measurement environment point [0013], [0028], [0033] and claim 39.), in particular wherein at least a portion of the first and/or the second set of targeting data being provided by the imaging sensor (Metzler teaches that directions are determined based on the location of the respective image element in the respective image, with the camera projection geometry taken into account [0027], [0051], [0070].). It would have been obvious to use Metzler’s image-derived direction information together with its automatically alignable sighting unit so that at least part of the targeting data is generated from the imaging sensor and then used for precise ranging/alignment. Regarding claim 8, Metzler in view of Mayster, teaches the survey instrument according to claim 1wherein the computing unit being configured to identify flat surfaces in the environment based on the image (Metzler teaches image features extracted from the environment image, including geometric elements , and for 3D images teaches use of features distributed in three-dimensional space [0025]. Metzler further teaches segmentation/matching of planes and lines in point-cloud images [0067].) and to calculate targeting data of the flat surface based on plurality of point targeting data contained by the flat surface (Metzler teaches that in the point-cloud/laser-scan case, directions and distances to imaged measurement environment points are already available and that these data can be used for the matched features/planes [0027]-[0028], [0060], [0072].). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use flat surfaces / planar features as the referencing features in Metzler’s image-based stationing process because Metzler already teaches extracting and matching geometric primitives , including planes , from point-cloud images, and teaches that the directions and distances of the underlying measurement points are available from the scan data. Using a flat surface derived from a plurality of measured points would have been nothing more than selecting a more stable and spatially extended feature representation from the same available data, which would have predictably improved robustness against noise, reduced ambiguity compared with isolated point features, and increased the reliability of determining the second pose relative to the first pose. Claim 10 is method claims corresponding to device claim 1. It is rejected for the same reason. Regarding claim 11, Metzler in view of Mayster, teaches the method according to claim 10, wherein at least one of the first pose and the second pose being a referenced absolute pose (Metzler, [0050], [0075], geo-referenced first position P1 and local reference system L1, implying use of absolute poses.). Regarding claim 12, Metzler in view of Mayster, teaches the method according to claim 10, further comprising acquiring a second image of the environment at the second pose (Metzler teaches recording the second image from the second deployment [0046],[0051].), identifying at least a part of the features comprised by first set of features based on image matching (Metzler teaches matching image elements or extracted image features between the first and second images, including point, line, plane, and descriptor-based matching [0024]-[0026], [0051]-[0052], [0063]-[0069].), and calculating a second score of applicability for the features in the first set of features (Maysler teaches a confidence score for features and expressly states that the confidence score can depend on a number of different perspectives and/or recency [0039]-[0041], [0161]-[0165].), selecting the second set of features comprising a plurality of features from the first set of features based on the score of applicability and further based on the second score of applicability (Maysler teaches identifying/selecting landmarks based on confidence criteria and entropic prominence criteria [0040], [0163]-[0165].). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to re-evaluate the usefulness of previously identified features after acquiring the second image in Metzler, because Metzler already relies on matching corresponding image elements/features between the first and second deployments to determine the position/orientation offset, and Maysler teaches that landmark usefulness can be assessed using a confidence score that depends on how reliably a feature is recognized, including from different perspectives. Thus, once Metzler reacquires features in the second image, it would have been a predictable improvement to calculate an updated score for those features and select the subset that remains most reliable for the final pose computation, thereby improving robustness and reducing the effect of weak, ambiguous, or poorly visible matches. Regarding claim 15, Metzler teaches a computer program product, stored on a machine-readable medium or embodied by an electromagnetic data signal, comprising program code suitable to determine the position/orientation offset according to the method ([0037] and claim 40). Metzler also teaches that the method steps can run in an automated and even fully automated manner using appropriate hardware/software and control motors ([0033]-[0034]). So, claim 15 merely recasts the already-taught method in program-product form, claim 15 is rejected for the same reason as claim 1 and 10 . 07-21-aia AIA Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Metzler in view of Mayster, Spiegel et al. (US 20200401617 A1, “Spiegel”), Wang et al. (US 20140267700 A1, “Wang”) and Kurz et al. (US 20170109916 A1, “Kurz”) . Regarding claim 3, Metzler in view of Mayster, teaches the survey instrument according to claim 1 wherein the survey instrument further comprising a pose tracking unit configured to provide a tracking of coarse pose data of the instrument (Metzler teaches determining approximate position and orientation information for the current second deployment using sensors such as inclination sensors, GNSS sensors, mobile radio receiver data, or an image-based comparative method [0021], [0061].), the automatic stationing functionality further comprising providing the tracking of the coarse pose data by the pose tracking unit ( Metzler determines automatically the second deployment of a geodetic surveying device relative to a first deployment, including automatically specifying a second region based on approximate position and orientation information and carrying out the determination in a fully automated manner ( [ 0006]-[0010], [0021], [0033]-[0034], [0051]-[0052], [0061]-[0063])), the selection a second set of features from the first set of features being further based on the tracking of the coarse pose data (Metzler teaches targeted specification of the second contiguous region based on approximate position/orientation information and on knowledge of the first region [0021], [0061]-[0063]), Metzler fails to explicitly teach in particular wherein the pose tracking unit comprising a visual positioning system (VPS) being based on the images provided by the imaging sensor. However, Spiegel discloses image-based self-localization by a VPS using a camera-captured query image and feature/correspondence matching ([0002], [0065], [0068], [0127]-[0130], [0176]-[0180]). It would have been obvious to incorporate a VPS because image-based pose estimation from the instrument’s camera provides an available and predictable source of coarse position/orientation data, which can be used to guide or support automatic stationing, reduce operator burden, and improve continuity of localization between higher-accuracy referencing events. Metzler fails to explicitly teach in particular, wherein the VPS being configured to provide feature tracking data for a plurality of tracked features comprised by the first set of features. However, Wang discloses an image-based feature-tracking process configured to process images, track multiple captured features/objects, and generate corresponding tracking data, including sets of position fixes for the tracked features ([0124]-[0126], [0133]-[0141]; claims 31 and 33). It would have been obvious to use Wang’s feature-tracking process in that VPS so that tracked features from earlier images are followed across later images and used to generate feature tracking data, because Wang teaches tracking features between first and second images and obtaining a set of tracking data for those features to determine position and orientation. Using such tracked-feature information in Metzler would have predictably improved continuity of localization and allowed the instrument to determine when sufficient tracked features remain available for reliable stationing. Metzler further fails to explicitly teach the survey instrument being configured to provide a request for stationing based on the feature tracking data, in particular when one or more tracked features are lost. However, Kurz teaches computing poses while tracking a real object ([0100]-[0101]), detecting a lost-tracking condition ([0005], [0019], [0102]-[0103]), and, in response, issuing an alert/instruction asking the user to point the camera back to the real object or environment for recovery of visual tracking ([0005], [0019]). One of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that the determination that tracking has been lost is necessarily based on the underlying tracking information generated from tracked visual features, and that the resulting alert/instruction constitutes a request to re-station or re-acquire a valid tracking pose. It would have been obvious to configure the survey instrument to provide a request for stationing based on the feature tracking data, particularly when tracked features are lost, because the tracked-feature status is the very indicator of whether the current pose remains trustworthy. Once the number or quality of tracked features drops below what is needed for reliable tracking, a skilled artisan would have been motivated to trigger a re-stationing/re-acquisition request so that the instrument can regain a view of the relevant object/environment, recover visual tracking, and avoid taking measurements from a compromised pose estimate . 07-21-aia AIA Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Metzler in view of Mayster and Kurz . Regarding claim 5, Metzler in view of Mayster, fails to explicitly teach the survey instrument according to claim 1 wherein automatic stationing functionality further comprising deriving a gross score of applicability, based on scores of applicability of the features of the first set of features, and providing feedback to the operator on a readiness for relocation based on the gross score of applicability, in particular wherein a tracking gross score of applicability being derived based on the tracking of the coarse pose data and the score of applicability for each of the features in the first set of features, the survey instrument being configured to provide a request for stationing based on the tracking gross score of applicability. Metzler teaches an automatic image-based stationing / relocation procedure for a geodetic surveying instrument, including matching previously recorded and current image information to determine a deployment offset, first in a non-scaled form and then precisely after scaling ([0012], [0019], [0024]-[0029], [0033]). While Kurz teaches evaluating whether tracked visual information remains suitable, storing poses while tracking is valid, and providing user-facing instructions or state changes when tracking is lost or becomes unsuitable ([0005], [0019]-[0023], [0050], [0068]-[0077], [0100]-[0106], [0114]-[0117]). It would have been obvious to incorporate Kurz’s tracking-suitability feedback into Metzler’s automatic re-stationing workflow because both references rely on image-based pose/tracking information, and Kurz teaches that system behavior and user prompting may be changed based on whether tracking remains suitable. Doing so would have predictably improved Metzler by giving the operator a clear indication of readiness for stationing . 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 6-7 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Metzler in view of Mayster and Török et al. (US 20210049784 A1, “Török”) . Regarding claim 6, Metzler in view of Mayster, fails to explicitly teach the survey instrument according to claim 1 wherein the computing unit being configured to receive a digital model of the environment comprising at least one of a map of the environment, a design data of the environment, and a previous targeting data measurement data of the environment, the computing unit being further configured to reference the fine pose and/or the coarse pose of the survey instrument to the digital model, and reference the position of the features in the catalog of referencing features to the digital model. Metzler teaches determining a survey instrument’s deployment offset first in an unscaled form and then as a precise scaled offset, thereby reasonably corresponding to coarse pose and fine pose ([0012], [0027]-[0029]). While, Török teaches receiving / accessing a digital model of the environment in the form of a map, floorplan, plan information, or CAD geometry, and further teaches matching environmental features to that digital model so that the instrument’s localization/orientation is determined with respect to the digital model ([0014], [0018]-[0019], [0024], [0026]-[0028], [0033]-[0040], [0061]-[0064]). It would have been obvious to combine Török’s CAD / floorplan referencing with Metzler’s image-based surveying relocation because both references are directed to locating a surveying instrument in a known environment from image-derived correspondences. Using Torok’s digital model would have predictably improved Metzler by providing a stable environmental reference for both the instrument pose and the matched environmental features. Regarding claim 7, Metzler in view of Mayster and Török, teaches the survey instrument according to claim 6, wherein the computing unit being further configured to receive an operator input on a requested second location (Maysler teaches selecting landmarks based on context data associated with a location on a path and a vantage point [0035], [0149]-[0151], [0203].), calculate a calculated visibility and/or a calculated score of applicability of the first set of features in the proximity of the requested second location (Maysler teaches determining visibility of landmarks from the vantage point based on distance, light, obstructions, physical dimensions, direction of travel, and mode of transport [0043]-[0049], [0169]-[0184].Maysler also teaches entropic prominence / landmark usefulness [0032]-[0041], [0144]-[0148].), calculate a proposed second location for the instrument based on the calculated visibility and/or the calculated score of applicability of the first set of features (Metzler’s automatic targeted specification of the second region based on approximate second position/orientation and known first-region information [0021], [0061]-[0063], together with Maysler’s context-dependent vantage-point selection [0035], [0149]-[0151].), provide guidance instructions for the operator to reach the proposed second location (Maysler teaches generating navigational instructions and visual/audible guidance referencing selected landmarks [0036], [0057], [0152]-[0155], [0204]-[0205].). It would have been obvious to use Maysler’s visibility-based landmark selection and guidance output in Metzler’s relocation workflow so that the instrument operator is guided toward a second location from which the selected features are more visible and more reliable for precise offset determination . 07-21-aia AIA Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Metzler in view of Mayster, Janky et al. (US 20110064312 A1, “Janky”) and Wallace et al. (US 20220178690 A1, “Wallace”) . Regarding claim 9, Metzler in view of Mayster, teaches the survey instrument according to claim 1 being configured to tag a survey data with a tagging pose of the survey instrument, wherein the tagging pose being either provided by o the fine pose data, or o the coarse pose data (Metzler teaches a survey instrument in which measured survey data are associated with a device deployment/pose, and further teaches determining a refined position and orientation of a later deployment relative to an earlier deployment based on first and second environment images and corresponding measurement-environment points, such that measurements from the later deployment can be transformed relative to the earlier deployment or an external reference system ([0012]-[0015], [0021], [0024]-[0029], [0046]-[0048], [0051], [0071]-[0073], claim 35)), Metzler fails to explicitly teach store the first set of features, the first set of targeting data, the second set of features and the second set of targeting data. However, Janky teaches storing image-associated features/reference points and associated location information for later use, including storing a georeferenced image together with point/reference information in a database ([0041]-[0045], [0131]-[0135], [0148], [0153]-[0155]). Metzler also fails to explicitly teach update the tagging pose of the survey instrument based on the stored first set of targeting data and the stored second set of targeting data. However, Wallace teaches storing images, pose data, 3D survey data, local model components, and key frames, and further teaches later updating/refining stored survey information, including receiving refined survey data and processing the refined survey data to identify errors and correct feature positions within the local model, including offline/server-side refinement ( claim 1, [0002], [0022], [0026], [0043]-[0048], [0050], [0074]-[0076], [0090]-[0091], [0145]-[0153]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Metzler to store the first set of features, first set of targeting data, second set of features, and second set of targeting data, and to update the tagging pose based on the stored first and second targeting data, including after acquisition or offline, in order to preserve multi-pose correspondence information and improve the robustness, consistency, and accuracy of the pose used for tagging survey data . 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 13-14, 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Metzler in view of Mayster and Wang . Regarding claim 13, Metzler in view of Mayster, fails to explicitly teach the method according to claim 10, wherein measuring the second set of targeting data being precedent to measuring the first set of targeting data. Metzler provides the base relocation / re-registration framework: a first deployment and a second deployment in the same measurement environment, recording corresponding environment information from the different deployments, matching corresponding image elements, determining directions to common environment points from the different deployments, and determining the positional/orientational relationship between deployments from those measurements ([0012], [0015]-[0019], [0024]-[0029], and claim 16). Wang teaches that different tracking-data sets may be acquired asynchronously , i.e., not in a fixed synchronized sequence. In particular, Wang states that the asynchronous operation is based on the first and second image-capturing devices capturing corresponding images at different times (non-synchronized) , and then describes obtaining one tracking-data set from one capture sequence and another tracking-data set from a different capture sequence at different positions. See Wang [0146]-[0148]. Wang therefore teaches that the order of acquisition of the data sets is not fixed, and that one set of targeting/tracking data may be obtained before the other. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, in Metzler’s relocation / correspondence-based survey framework, to measure the second set of targeting data before the first set of targeting data, as taught by Wang’s asynchronous acquisition approach, because doing so would have allowed more flexible field operation and data collection without requiring a rigid acquisition sequence, particularly where visibility, instrument movement, or feature availability varies over time. Regarding claim 14, Metzler in view of Mayster and Wang, teaches the method according to claim 13, wherein the instrument being relocated along a plurality of poses, wherein at least two poses in the plurality of the poses being referenced poses and at least one pose in the plurality of the poses being a nonreferenced pose, the method further comprising updating a tagging pose of the at least one nonreferenced pose by weighting the second set of targeting data derived in respect to the at least two referenced poses. Metzler teaches the referenced-pose side of the claim. Metzler teaches a first deployment having a known position/orientation and a second deployment whose position/orientation is determined relative to the first deployment through matched environment features and corresponding directional data. Metzler further teaches transforming measurement data obtained from the second deployment into the reference frame of the first deployment, i.e., using the later-determined deployment information to update the location information associated with subsequently measured environment points. See Metzler [0015] , [0029] , [0033] , [0073]-[0074] , and claim 35 . Thus, Metzler teaches the general “tagging pose” update concept using referenced deployments. Wang teaches the claimed plurality of poses and the distinction between directly referenced poses and another pose updated from them. In Wang’s asynchronous mode, a first image pair is captured at a first and second position to obtain a first tracking-data set, and another image pair is captured at a third and fourth position to obtain a second tracking-data set. See Wang [0147]-[0150] . These are multiple poses of the instrument. Wang then teaches that yet another position may be determined without actually capturing any new images , by linear interpolation of previous positions of the platform. See Wang [0151]-[0152] . That interpolated position corresponds to the claimed nonreferenced pose , while the previously determined positions correspond to the claimed referenced poses . Wang also expressly teaches weighting tracking data to update pose. Specifically, Wang teaches assigning a first weight to a first set of tracking data and a second weight to a second set of tracking data, and determining the platform position using the weighted tracking data . Wang further teaches use of a Kalman filter to obtain a Kalman estimate of the position by combining different tracking-data sets as noisy measurements. See Wang [0124]-[0126] , [0144]-[0145] . Thus, Wang teaches updating a pose that is not itself directly referenced by using weighted data derived from other poses, and Metzler teaches using such determined pose relationships to update the pose/location associated with later survey data relative to referenced deployments. It therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to update a tagging pose of a nonreferenced pose by weighting the second set of targeting data derived with respect to at least two referenced poses, in order to improve pose robustness and maintain consistent registration of survey data across multiple relocations. Regarding claim 16, Metzler in view of Mayster and Wamg, teaches a computer program product for a survey system, which when executed by a computing unit of a survey instrument, causes the automatic execution of the steps of the method according to claim 14. Metzler in view of Mayster and Wamg, teaches the subject matter of claim 16 for the same reasons as claim 14, implemented in program-instruction form. Metzler expressly teaches that the disclosed relocation / offset-determination method is carried out by a control and evaluation unit of the surveying device, and also expressly states that the invention relates to a computer program product with program code suitable to determine the position offset and orientation offset from a recorded environment image. See Metzler [0013], [0033]-[0037], claim 39, and claim 40. Wang likewise teaches processor-implemented tracking and pose estimation. Wang teaches a process implemented by a processor for extracting tracking data for multiple captured features, combining such data using weighting / Kalman estimation, and determining additional positions from prior measured positions, including asynchronously captured data sets. See Wang [0112], [0124]-[0126], [0146]-[0152]. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to embody the Metzler in view of Wang method in a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions that, when executed by one or more processors, perform the claimed updating of the tagging pose, because Metzler already expressly contemplates a computer-program-product implementation and Wang supplies the processor-executed weighted multi-pose updating functionality used for the claim 14 method . Conclusion 07-96 AIA The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Bestler et al. (US 20150098075 A1), teaches Scanner for space measurement Pettersson et al. (US 20170276485 A1), teaches construction site referencing Siercks et al. (US 20150042977 A1), teaches measurement system with a measuring device and a scanning module Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JEMPSON NOEL whose telephone number is (571) 272-3376. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 8:00-5:00. Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000. /JEMPSON NOEL/Examiner, Art Unit 3645 /YUQING XIAO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3645 Application/Control Number: 18/227,844 Page 2 Art Unit: 3645 Application/Control Number: 18/227,844 Page 3 Art Unit: 3645 Application/Control Number: 18/227,844 Page 4 Art Unit: 3645 Application/Control Number: 18/227,844 Page 5 Art Unit: 3645 Application/Control Number: 18/227,844 Page 6 Art Unit: 3645 Application/Control Number: 18/227,844 Page 7 Art Unit: 3645 Application/Control Number: 18/227,844 Page 8 Art Unit: 3645 Application/Control Number: 18/227,844 Page 9 Art Unit: 3645 Application/Control Number: 18/227,844 Page 10 Art Unit: 3645 Application/Control Number: 18/227,844 Page 11 Art Unit: 3645 Application/Control Number: 18/227,844 Page 12 Art Unit: 3645 Application/Control Number: 18/227,844 Page 13 Art Unit: 3645 Application/Control Number: 18/227,844 Page 14 Art Unit: 3645 Application/Control Number: 18/227,844 Page 15 Art Unit: 3645 Application/Control Number: 18/227,844 Page 16 Art Unit: 3645 Application/Control Number: 18/227,844 Page 17 Art Unit: 3645 Application/Control Number: 18/227,844 Page 18 Art Unit: 3645 Application/Control Number: 18/227,844 Page 19 Art Unit: 3645 Application/Control Number: 18/227,844 Page 20 Art Unit: 3645 Application/Control Number: 18/227,844 Page 21 Art Unit: 3645 Application/Control Number: 18/227,844 Page 22 Art Unit: 3645 Application/Control Number: 18/227,844 Page 23 Art Unit: 3645