Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
DETAILED ACTION
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of Applicant's claim for foreign priority based on a Patent Applications filed on 12/17/20. It is noted that Applicant has not filed a certified copy of the application as required by 35 U.S.C. 119(b).
RESPONSE TO ARGUMENTS
Applicant’s amendments and remarks filed on 5/11/26 have been fully considered and the rejections withdrawn in light of Applicant’s amendment. However, based on further consideration a new ground of rejection is entered in view of FESSLER (US. Pub. No.: 2014-0283399) for Claims 1, 6, 9-12 and in light of Applicant’s newly amended claims.
Examiner acknowledges Claim 2 has been canceled and Claim 13 has been added.
Regarding Applicant’s remarks on Pages 8-11, Applicant’s amendments and remarks filed on 5/11/26 have been fully considered and the rejections withdrawn in light of Applicant’s amendment. However, based on further consideration a new ground of rejection is entered in view of FESSLER (US. Pub. No.: 2014-0283399) for Claims 1, 6, 9-12 and in light of Applicant’s newly amended claims (See rejection contained herein). Examiner respectfully submits FESSLER does disclose ‘determining an angle of inclination of the measuring plane with respect to a reference plane in a calibration measurement using the laser rangefinder’ and ‘correcting the profile section using the angle of inclination of the measuring plane determined in a calibration measurement’ whereby Examiner has cited additional portions of the prior art disclosure to read upon the newly amended language, whereby FESSLER was not relied upon to disclose ‘a 2D scanner measurement plane’ nor do the claims recite ‘correct a profile section generated from recorded distance measurement values and directions’ (See rejection contained herein).
Examiner additionally submits the prior art combination is a reasonable combination of prior art references to read upon said claims and as well Examiner has established a prima facie case of obviousness for combining the prior art of record to reject the pending outstanding rejected claims as well as establishing the motivation to do so in light of the recitation and construing of said claims. Accordingly, the rejections stand for the independent as well as dependent claims.
FINAL REJECTION
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 non-obviousness.
Claims 1, 6, 9-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over FARSAIE (US Pub. No.: 2009-0251680) in view of FESSLER (US. Pub. No.: 2014-0283399).
As per Claim 1 FARSAIE discloses A method for determining a profile section of an object and/or space using a 2D laser scanner having a laser rangefinder, comprising (Figs. 1-3 capture at least 2D scanned data – at least 2D scanner with laser rangefinder – profile section spatial scanned models built in 3D point cloud data [Abstract] [0005]):
recording mutually assignable distance measurement values and distance measurement directions using the laser rangefinder in a measuring plane traversed radially by a laser beam of the laser rangefinder (Figs. 1-3 [Abstract] [0005] record measured point cloud data – plurality of distances from target object using beam scans – arcs of spherical capture [0013-0015, 0018] [0024-0025, 0027] [0033]);
determining the profile section from the distance measurement values and distance measurement directions (Figs. 1-3 [Abstract] [0005] [0013-0015, 0018] spatial section – directions vary as rotation for beam [0020-0024] [0025-0027] [0033]); determining an angle of inclination of the measuring plane with respect to a reference plane (Figs. 1-3 [Abstract] [0005] [0013-0015, 0018] reference planes horizontal/vertical – angle tilt for measurement device effects of relational change to measurement plane [0020-0024] [0025-0027] [0033]);
FARSAIE does not disclose but FESSLER discloses determining an angle of inclination of the measuring plane with respect to a reference plane in a calibration measurement using the laser rangefinder (Figs. 1-6 at least one measurement and compensation angle embodiments [Abstract] [0045] angles [0054-0055] [0072] [0121] [0146]); and correcting the profile section using the angle of inclination of the measuring plane determined in a calibration measurement (Figs. 1-6 correcting for at least improved alignments [0045-0047] [0116, 0121] [0146])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include determining an angle of inclination of the measuring plane with respect to a reference plane in a calibration measurement using the laser rangefinder; and correcting the profile section using the angle of inclination of the measuring plane determined in a calibration measurement as taught by FESSLER into the system of FARSAIE because of the benefit taught by FESSLER to include calibrating a laser system for improved accurate measurements whereby FARSAIE is directed towards measurements with laser systems and would benefit from the including of component and system calibration to improve upon more accurate measurement outcomes.
As per Claim 6 FARSAIE discloses The method according to claim 1, wherein the angle of inclination of the measuring plane is determined from the profile section (Figs. 1-3 [Abstract] [0005] profile spatial section – angle tilt for measurement device effects of relational change to measurement plane [0020-0024] [0025-0027] [0033]).
As per Claim 9 FARSAIE discloses The method according to claim 1, wherein
FARSAIE does not disclose but FESSLER discloses the determined angle of inclination of the measuring plane is refined or compensated using a sensor (Figs. 1-6 [0025] [0045] [0072]) (The motivation that applied in Claim 1 applies equally to Claim 9).
As per Claim 10 FARSAIE discloses A 2D laser scanner comprising at least one laser rangefinder (Figs. 1-3 capture at least 2D scanned data – at least 2D scanner with laser rangefinder – profile section spatial scanned models built in 3D point cloud data [Abstract] [0005]), the 2D laser scanner being configured to record mutually assignable distance measurement values and distance measurement directions using the laser rangefinder in a measuring plane that is traversed radially by a laser beam of the laser rangefinder (Figs. 1-3 [Abstract] [0005] record measured point cloud data – plurality of distances from target object using beam scans – arcs of spherical capture [0013-0015, 0018] [0024-0025, 0027] [0033]), and a computing unit that is configured to execute (computer 20 Fig. 1 [0016])
FARSAIE in view of FESSLER discloses the method according to claim 1 (See said analysis for Claim 1).
As per Claim 11 FARSAIE discloses A system comprising a 2D laser scanner, comprising at least one laser rangefinder (Figs. 1-3 capture at least 2D scanned data – at least 2D scanner with laser rangefinder – profile section spatial scanned models built in 3D point cloud data [Abstract] [0005]), the 2D laser scanner being configured to record mutually assignable distance measurement values and distance measurement directions via the laser rangefinder in a measuring plane traversed radially by a laser beam of the laser rangefinder (Figs. 1-3 3D scanner with 2D capabilities [Abstract] [0005] record measured point cloud data – plurality of distances from target object using beam scans – arcs of spherical capture [0013-0015, 0018] [0024-0025, 0027] [0033]); and, a computing unit configured to execute (computer 20 Fig. 1 [0016]) FARSAIE in view of FESSLER discloses the method according to claim 1 (See said analysis for Claim 1).
As per Claim 12 FARSAIE discloses The method according to claim 1, wherein the reference plane is one of a horizontal and a vertical reference plane (Figs. 1-3 [Abstract] [0005] [0013-0015, 0018] reference planes horizontal/vertical – angle tilt for measurement device effects of relational change to measurement plane [0020-0024] [0025-0027] [0033]).
Allowable Subject Matter
REASON FOR ALLOWANCE
As per Claim 7, the following is an Examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: the closest prior art obtained from an Examiner’s search (FARSAIE, US Pub. No.: 2009-0251680; FESSLER, US. Pub. No.: 2014-0283399; SAKAMAKI, US Pub. No.: 2018-0299558) does not teach nor suggest in detail the limitations:
“A method for determining a profile section of an object and/or space using a 2D laser scanner having a laser rangefinder, comprising: recording mutually assignable distance measurement values and distance measurement directions using the laser rangefinder in a measuring plane traversed radially by a laser beam of the laser rangefinder; determining the profile section from the distance measurement values and distance measurement directions; determining an angle of inclination of the measuring plane with respect to a reference plane from the profile section using the laser rangefinder; correcting the profile section using the angle of inclination of the measuring plane, wherein determining the angle of inclination comprises: compensating a distortion of the profile section resulting from a variation in the angle of inclination; and determining the angle of inclination by simulation in response to the compensation”
as well as the combination of all the limitations within the independent claims and the enabling portions of the specification.
The closest prior art of record FARSAIE does not teach or suggest in detail at least correcting a profile section using the angle of inclination of the measuring plane when determining the angle of inclination includes compensating a distortion of the profile section resulting from a variation in the angle of inclination and determining the angle of inclination by simulation in response to the compensation as amended by the Applicant.
FARSAIE only discloses determining a profile section of an object or space using a 2D laser scanner having a laser rangefinder. The prior art further teaches recording mutually assignable distance measurement values and distance measurement directions using the laser rangefinder in a measuring plane traversed radially by a laser beam of the laser rangefinder, determining the profile section from the distance measurement values and distance measurement directions, and determining an angle of inclination of the measuring plane with respect to a reference plane.
Whereas, as stated above, Applicant’s claimed invention recites determining a profile section of an object and/or space using a 2D laser scanner having a laser rangefinder which includes recording mutually assignable distance measurement values and distance measurement directions using the laser rangefinder in a measuring plane traversed radially by a laser beam of the laser rangefinder. The invention further claims determining the profile section from the distance measurement values and distance measurement directions, determining an angle of inclination of the measuring plane with respect to a reference plane from the profile section using the laser rangefinder, correcting the profile section using the angle of inclination of the measuring plane, wherein determining the angle of inclination includes compensating a distortion of the profile section resulting from a variation in the angle of inclination, and finally determining the angle of inclination by simulation in response to the compensation.
So as indicated by the above statements, Applicant’s arguments and amendment have been considered persuasive, in light of the claim limitations as well as the enabling portions of the specification.
The dependent claims further limit the independent claims and are considered allowable on the same basis as the independent claims as well as for the further limitations set forth.
As per Claim 8, the following is an Examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: the closest prior art obtained from an Examiner’s search (FARSAIE, US Pub. No.: 2009-0251680; FESSLER, US. Pub. No.: 2014-0283399; SAKAMAKI, US Pub. No.: 2018-0299558) does not teach nor suggest in detail the limitations:
“A method for determining a profile section of an object and/or space using a 2D laser scanner having a laser rangefinder, comprising: recording mutually assignable distance measurement values and distance measurement directions using the laser rangefinder in a measuring plane traversed radially by a laser beam of the laser rangefinder; determining the profile section from the distance measurement values and distance
measurement directions; determining an angle of inclination of the measuring plane with respect to a reference plane from the profile section using the laser rangefinder, wherein the angle of inclination is determined
by trigonometric calculation from two distance measurement values in different and non-parallel distance measurement directions as well as the angular distance between these distance measurement directions; and
correcting the profile section using the angle of inclination of the measuring plane”
as well as the combination of all the limitations within the independent claims and the enabling portions of the specification.
The closest prior art of record FARSAIE does not teach or suggest in detail at least determining an angle of inclination of the measuring plane with respect to a reference plane from the profile section using the laser rangefinder such that the angle of inclination is determined by trigonometric calculation from two distance measurement values in different and non-parallel distance measurement directions as well as the angular distance between these distance measurement directions. The prior art is also silent as to correcting the profile section using the angle of inclination of the measuring plane as amended by the Applicant.
FARSAIE only discloses determining a profile section of an object or space using a 2D laser scanner having a laser rangefinder. The prior art further teaches recording mutually assignable distance measurement values and distance measurement directions using the laser rangefinder in a measuring plane traversed radially by a laser beam of the laser rangefinder, determining the profile section from the distance measurement values and distance measurement directions, and determining an angle of inclination of the measuring plane with respect to a reference plane.
Whereas, as stated above, Applicant’s claimed invention recites determining a profile section of an object and/or space using a 2D laser scanner having a laser rangefinder which includes recording mutually assignable distance measurement values and distance measurement directions using the laser rangefinder in a measuring plane traversed radially by a laser beam of the laser rangefinder. The invention further claims determining the profile section from the distance measurement values and distance measurement directions, determining an angle of inclination of the measuring plane with respect to a reference plane from the profile section using the laser rangefinder, wherein the angle of inclination is determined by trigonometric calculation from two distance measurement values in different and non-parallel distance measurement directions as well as the angular distance between these distance measurement directions, and correcting the profile section using the angle of inclination of the measuring plane.
So as indicated by the above statements, Applicant’s arguments and amendment have been considered persuasive, in light of the claim limitations as well as the enabling portions of the specification.
The dependent claims further limit the independent claims and are considered allowable on the same basis as the independent claims as well as for the further limitations set forth.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Claims 7-8 are allowed.
Claims 3-5, 13 is/are objected to as being dependent upon the rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 3-5, 13 is/are allowed. The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
As per Claim 3 the prior art of record either alone or in reasonable combination fails to teach or suggest “The method according to claim 1, wherein: in the calibration measurement a plurality of distance measurement values are also recorded at increasing and/or decreasing angles with respect to the measuring plane using the laser rangefinder in two different, non-parallel distance measuring directions in each case in addition to a distance measurement value in the measuring plane; a minimum value of the plurality of distance measurement values is determined; a direction-dependent angular deviation is determined using the minimum value and the distance measurement value of the plurality of distance measurement values in the measuring plane for the respective distance measuring direction; and the angle of inclination of the measuring plane with respect to the reference plane is calculated from the two direction-dependent angular deviations and the angular distance between the two distance measurement directions" These limitations in combination with the other limitations of the independent claim are thus deemed allowable.
As per Claim 4 the prior art of record either alone or in reasonable combination fails to teach or suggest “The method according to claim 3, wherein the two different distance measurement directions are orthogonal to each other" These limitations in combination with the other limitations of the independent claim are thus deemed allowable.
As per Claim 5 the prior art of record either alone or in reasonable combination fails to teach or suggest “The method of claim 3, wherein the plurality of distance measurement values are recorded at increasing and/or decreasing angles with respect to the measuring plane during manual or automatic tilting of the laser rangefinder, in particular of the 2D laser scanner" These limitations in combination with the other limitations of the independent claim are thus deemed allowable.
As per Claim 13 the prior art of record either alone or in reasonable combination fails to teach or suggest “The method according to claim 1, wherein: in the calibration measurement, a plurality of distance measurement values are also recorded at increasing and/or decreasing angles with respect to the measuring plane using the laser rangefinder in two different, non-parallel distance measuring directions in each case in addition to a distance measurement value in the measuring plane; and the angle of inclination of the measuring plane with respect to the reference plane is determined based on the plurality of distance measurement values taken in the calibration measurement" These limitations in combination with the other limitations of the independent claim are thus deemed allowable.
The closest prior art of record FARSAIE (US Pub. No.: 2009-0251680) for Claims 3-5, 13 does not teach all the elements in combination with the other limitations of the independent claim. FARSAIE only discloses determining a profile section of an object or space using a 2D laser scanner having a laser rangefinder. The prior art further teaches recording mutually assignable distance measurement values and distance measurement directions using the laser rangefinder in a measuring plane traversed radially by a laser beam of the laser rangefinder, determining the profile section from the distance measurement values and distance measurement directions, and determining an angle of inclination of the measuring plane with respect to a reference plane.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
Applicant’s amendment necessitated a new ground of rejection. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Eileen Adams whose telephone number is 571-280-3688. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday from 8:30am-5:00pm EST. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, William Vaughn can be reached on (571) 272-3922. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-270-4688.
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 http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have any 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.
/EILEEN M ADAMS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2481
Prosecution Insights