DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I (claims 1-7 and 44-53) in the reply filed on 15 July 2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 8-10 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 15 July 2026.
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 1-7 and 44-53 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, the phrase “a large number of different alignments” does not provide an ascertainable standard for determining how many alignments qualify as “large” for the distance measuring beam scan. Applicant may overcome the indefiniteness by amending “a large number of different alignments” to recite --a plurality of different alignments--.
Regarding claim 6, the phrase “a large number of different alignments” does not provide an ascertainable standard for determining how many alignments qualify as “large” for the intensity scan. Applicant may overcome the indefiniteness by amending “a large number of different alignments” to recite --a plurality of different alignments--.
Regarding claim 44, the claim alternatively recites “a first beam deflection element” and “a second beam deflection element,” each with a specified optical path arrangement. Claim 44 further recites “to perform a setting” using a separate selection between those elements. It is unclear whether the element being set must satisfy its corresponding optical path arrangement, or whether the arrangement requirement may be satisfied solely by the other beam deflection element. The readings impose different structural requirements rendering the claim scope uncertain. Applicant may overcome the indefiniteness by amending the claim to read:
wherein the laser tracker comprises an optical coupling element configured for generating a common emission path of the targeting beam and the distance measuring beam; and the laser tracker satisfies one or both of the following alternatives:
(i) a first beam deflection element is arranged in the emission path of the targeting beam upstream of the optical coupling element, configured to set an emission direction of the targeting beam relative to the emitting component, and the laser tracker is configured, in the context of the distance measurement, to perform a setting of the first beam deflection element depending on a set distance to the target object, wherein the laser tracker is configured to provide the setting of the first beam deflection element based on the referencing data describing a spatial relationship between the distance measuring axis and the target axis; and
(ii) a second beam deflection element is arranged in the emission path of the distance measuring beam upstream of the optical coupling element, configured to set an emission direction of the distance measuring beam relative to the emitting component, and the laser tracker is configured, in the context of the distance measurement, to perform a setting of the second beam deflection element depending on a set distance to the target object, wherein the laser tracker is configured to provide the setting of the second beam deflection element based on the referencing data describing a spatial relationship between the distance measuring axis and the target axis.
Regarding claim 46, the claim alternatively recites “a first beam deflection element” and “a second beam deflection element,” each with a specified optical path arrangement. Claim 46 further recites “to perform a setting” using a separate selection between those elements. It is unclear whether the element being set must satisfy its corresponding optical path arrangement, or whether the arrangement requirement may be satisfied solely by the other beam deflection element. The readings impose different structural requirements rendering the claim scope uncertain. Applicant may overcome the indefiniteness by amending the claim to read:
wherein the laser tracker comprises an optical coupling element configured for generating a common emission path of the targeting beam and the distance measuring beam; and the laser tracker satisfies one or both of the following alternatives:
(i) a first beam deflection element is arranged in the emission path of the targeting beam upstream of the optical coupling element, configured to set an emission direction of the targeting beam relative to the emitting component, and the laser tracker is configured, in the context of the distance measurement, to perform a setting of the first beam deflection element depending on a set distance to the target object, wherein the laser tracker is configured to provide the setting of the first beam deflection element based on the referencing data describing a spatial relationship between the distance measuring axis and the target axis; and
(ii) a second beam deflection element is arranged in the emission path of the distance measuring beam upstream of the optical coupling element, configured to set an emission direction of the distance measuring beam relative to the emitting component, and the laser tracker is configured, in the context of the distance measurement, to perform a setting of the second beam deflection element depending on a set distance to the target object, wherein the laser tracker is configured to provide the setting of the second beam deflection element based on the referencing data describing a spatial relationship between the distance measuring axis and the target axis.
Claims 2-5, 7 and 44-53 are rejected by virtue of dependency.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Graesser (US 20140123508 A1) in view of Grässer (US 20110023578 A1).
Regarding claim 6, Graesser discloses a laser tracker for industrial coordinative position determination of a target object (Fig. 15, apparatus 1500; ¶¶ 93, 115, 119), including:
an emitting unit having an emitting component rotatable around two axes of rotation (Fig. 15, the beam emitting assembly aimed by pointing drive system 1535 about axes 1510 and 1515; ¶¶ 74, 79, 87), wherein the emitting component is configured to emit a targeting beam defining a target axis (Fig. 15, source 1525 emitting beam 1530 along axis 1520; ¶ 74) and a distance measuring beam defining a distance measuring axis (Fig. 15, source 1552 emitting beam 1590 along path 1595; ¶¶ 83, 85),
[1: …], and
a distance measuring unit configured to carry out a distance measurement to the target object (Fig. 15, EDM 1585, as operated in Fig. 22, step 2225; ¶ 115, the EDM measures the range to the target location), in the context of which the distance measuring beam is emitted from the emitting component in the direction of the target object (Fig. 15, beam 1590; ¶¶ 83, 87, 115, the measurement beam is emitted and aimed at the target location) and [2: …], wherein the laser tracker is configured to carry out a calibration functionality for referencing the distance measuring axis and the target axis (Fig. 15, processor 1560; ¶ 96, a collimation correction is determined between pointing axis 1520 and measurement axis 1595; ¶ 119 expressly relates the calibration corrections to Fig. 15 control 1540), including:
a target axis reference measurement, wherein target axis angle data for an alignment of the emitting component are assigned to a first target point (¶¶ 126-127, horizontal and vertical angles are registered when the green pointing beam is aimed at the target) [3: …] when the target axis is aligned by means of rotation of the emitting component around the two axes of rotation on the first target point (Fig. 15, pointing drive system 1535; ¶¶ 79, 126-127, the pointing beam is aimed at the target in two instrument faces), [4: …], [5: …], and
a derivation of referencing data describing a spatial relationship between the distance measuring axis and the target axis (Fig. 15, processor 1560; ¶¶ 96, 129-130, the relative collimation correction is determined using the pointing beam correction and the angular difference between the two beams) in consideration of the target axis angle data (¶¶ 126-130, the registered pointing beam angles enter the correction calculation), [6: …], and a previously known spatial relationship between the first and the second target point (¶¶ 125-127, both beam observations concern the same static target, providing a known relationship of coincident positions).
Graesser does not disclose:
[1] “an angle detector configured for detecting angle data with respect to a rotation of the emitting component around the two axes of rotation”;
[2] “returning parts of the distance measuring beam are received”;
[3] “by means of the angle detector”;
[4] “an intensity scan, wherein a scan of a reference object takes place, wherein a large number of different alignments of the emitting component with respect to the two axes of rotation are set and respective associated reception intensities of returning parts of the distance measuring beam are assigned by means of the distance measuring beam and associated scanning angle data for the respective alignment of the emitting component around the two axes of rotation are assigned by means of the angle detector to the different alignments”;
[5] “an identification of a predefined second target point provided by the reference object on the basis of an intensity distribution of the reception intensities on the reference object”; and
[6] “the scanning angle data”.
However, Grässer supplies teaches limitations:
[1] and [3] through sensors that measure horizontal and vertical angular positions (Fig. 2, angle sensors 160 and 165; ¶ 83).
[2] through reception of the reflected portion of the emitted EDM radiation (Fig. 7, receiving optical channel 750, as operated in Fig. 8, step 8030; ¶ 152), where Fig. 8 calibration procedure operates in the instrument of Fig. 2 (¶ 150).
[4] through a scan of a region containing a reference target, using multiple instrument alignments and recording the received signal and corresponding angle at each position (Fig. 8, steps 8010-8060; ¶¶ 151-154), where increasing the number of scanned positions improves calibration quality, and the received signal strengths are mapped as a function of the recorded angles (¶¶ 152-153), performed using two rotational drives (Fig. 2, drives 140 and 145; ¶ 151).
[5] through a prism reference target whose aiming pattern identifies the prism center (Fig. 6, target 620; ¶¶ 122-123), together with identification of angular location of the reference target from a peak in the received intensity distribution (¶ 155), where applying the angular peak to the prism center identified by the aiming pattern provides the predefined second target point.
[6] by deriving the EDM calibration observation from the position of the intensity peak along the recorded angular coordinates (¶¶ 153-155), where the scanning angles enter the relative beam calculation through the EDM angular observation obtained from the intensity peak.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the laser tracker of Graesser with the teachings of Grässer with a reasonable expectation of success in order to determine the EDM calibration direction from an intensity scan while reducing reliance on manual aiming, thereby yielding a system with improved calibration and measurement accuracy (Grässer, ¶¶ 61-64, 135-137, 151-155).
Claims 1-3 and 48 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Graesser in view of Bestler (US 20150098075 A1) further in view of Sasaki (US 20190145769 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Graesser discloses a laser tracker for industrial coordinative position determination of a target object (Fig. 15, apparatus 1500; ¶¶ 93, 115, 119), including:
an emitting unit having an emitting component rotatable around two axes of rotation (Fig. 15, the beam emitting assembly aimed by pointing drive system 1535 about axes 1510 and 1515; ¶¶ 74, 79, 87), wherein the emitting component is configured to emit a targeting beam defining a target axis (Fig. 15, source 1525 emitting beam 1530 along axis 1520; ¶ 74) and a distance measuring beam defining a distance measuring axis (Fig. 15, source 1552 emitting beam 1590 along path 1595; ¶¶ 83, 85),
[1: …], and
a distance measuring unit configured to carry out a distance measurement to the target object (Fig. 15, EDM 1585, as operated in Fig. 22, step 2225; ¶ 115, the EDM measures the range to the target location), in the context of which the distance measuring beam is emitted from the emitting component in the direction of the target object (Fig. 15, beam 1590; ¶¶ 83, 87, 115, the measurement beam is emitted and aimed at the target location) and [2: …],
wherein the laser tracker is configured to carry out a calibration functionality for referencing the distance measuring axis and the target axis (Fig. 15, processor 1560; ¶ 96, a collimation correction is determined between pointing axis 1520 and measurement axis 1595; ¶ 119 expressly relates the calibration corrections to Fig. 15 control 1540), including:
a target axis reference measurement, wherein target axis angle data for an alignment of the emitting component are assigned to a first target point (¶¶ 126-127, horizontal and vertical angles are registered when the green pointing beam is aimed at the target) [3: …] when the target axis is aligned by means of rotation of the emitting component around the two axes of rotation on the first target point (Fig. 15, pointing drive system 1535; ¶¶ 79, 126-127, the pointing beam is aimed at the target in two instrument faces), [4: …], [5: …] and, [6: …], and
a derivation of referencing data describing a spatial relationship between the distance measuring axis and the target axis (Fig. 15, processor 1560; ¶¶ 96, 129-130, the relative collimation correction is determined using the pointing beam correction and the angular difference between the two beams) in consideration of the target axis angle data (¶¶ 126-130, the registered pointing beam angles enter the correction calculation), [7: …], and a previously known spatial relationship between the first and the second target point (¶¶ 125-127, both beam observations concern the same static target, providing a known relationship of coincident positions).
Graesser does not disclose:
[1] “an angle detector configured for detecting angle data with respect to a rotation of the emitting component around the two axes of rotation”;
[2] “returning parts of the distance measuring beam are received”;
[3] “by means of the angle detector”;
[4] “a distance measuring beam scan, wherein a scan of a reference object takes place, wherein a large number of different alignments of the emitting component with respect to the two axes of rotation are set and respective associated scanning distances to the reference object are assigned by means of the distance measuring beam and associated scanning angle data for the respective alignment of the emitting component around the two axes of rotation are assigned by means of the angle detector to the different alignments”;
[5] “a generation of a geometrical model of the reference object by means of the scanning distances and the scanning angle data”;
[6] “based thereon, an identification of a predefined second target point provided by the reference object”; and
[7] “the scanning angle data”.
However, Bestler teaches limitations:
[1] and [3] through angle encoders that acquire the current rotational angles about both instrument axes (Fig. 1, unnumbered angle encoders associated with axes 4 and 11; ¶ 86) and further describes recording the angular coordinates of an individually sighted target from these encoders (¶ 47).
[2] through reception of reflected measurement radiation (Fig. 1, detector 8 receiving radiation 17; ¶ 86).
[4] through scanning about two rotation axes and acquiring a distance and associated angular information for each sampled surface point (Fig. 1, measuring head 2 and beam deflection unit 10, as further detailed in Fig. 2; ¶¶ 3, 86-87).
[5] by calculating spatial positions from the acquired distances and angles and generating a geometrical model in the form of a point cloud (¶ 3).
[7] through the positions of significant object features in the generated point cloud are compared with independently observed positions of the same features to determine laser calibration deviations (¶ 24).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the laser tracker of Graesser with the teachings of Bestler with a reasonable expectation of success in order to determine laser calibration deviations from corresponding independent and scanning observations of the same object features, thereby yielding a system with improved laser calibration based on the geometrical information obtained from distance and angular measurements (Bestler, ¶¶ 3-12, 24).
Graesser in view of Bestler does not expressly specify the particular predefined point identification of limitation [6]. However, Sasaki supplies the limitation by identifying a previously selected apex from fitted scan geometry (Fig. 3, plane crossing location calculator 113; Fig. 4, apex 301; ¶¶ 58-60, 75-77). Sasaki also uses the difference between independently measured and reconstructed coordinates of that same apex to perform corrective calibration (¶¶ 65-71). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the laser tracker of Graesser in view of Bestler with the teachings of Sasaki with a reasonable expectation of success in order to establish a corresponding calibration point from the intersection of fitted object surfaces, thereby yielding a system in which independently measured and reconstructed coordinates of the selected apex can be compared for improved calibration corrections (Sasaki, ¶¶ 5-7, 58-60, 65-71).
Regarding claim 2, Graesser in view of Bestler further in view of Sasaki teaches the laser tracker of claim 1, and further teaches: the laser tracker is configured to provide the performance of the distance measurement in the scope of a first and a second measurement functionality (Bestler, ¶¶ 3, 47-48, the surveying apparatus provides surface scanning and individual target measurements), wherein: in the first measurement functionality, the distance measurement takes place on a cooperative target (Bestler, ¶¶ 47-48, the individual point measurement acquires distance and angular coordinates, and the target can be a retroreflective prism), and in the second measurement functionality, the distance measurement takes place on a diffusely scattering target (Bestler, ¶¶ 2-3, the scanner measures reflected laser radiation from ordinary surfaces of interiors, buildings, and other objects, understood to be diffusely scattering surfaces measured without a cooperative reflector at each sampled point). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the laser tracker of Graesser in view of Bestler further in view of Sasaki with the additional teachings of Bestler with a reasonable expectation of success in order to acquire distance measurements from both cooperative targets and ordinary object surfaces, yielding a more versatile system capable of determining coordinates across diverse environments and features (Bestler, ¶¶ 2-3, 47-48).
Regarding claim 3, Graesser in view of Bestler further in view of Sasaki teaches the laser tracker of claim 1, and further teaches: wherein the laser tracker is configured such that the derivation of the referencing data is carried out based on the assumption that the spatial arrangement of the first and the second target point is fixed (Graesser, ¶¶ 125-127, the two beam observations concern the same static target; ¶ 130, their angular difference is used in the calibration calculation).
Regarding claim 48, Graesser in view of Bestler further in view of Sasaki teaches the laser tracker of claim 3, and further teaches: wherein the derivation of the referencing data is carried out based on the assumption that the positions of the first and the second target point in space are identical (Graesser, ¶¶ 125-127, both beam observations are directed to the same target; ¶ 130, the calibration uses their angular difference).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Graesser in view of Bestler further in view of Sasaki further in view of Zhang (“The guidance methodology of a new automatic guided laser theodolite system,” published 2009)1.
Regarding claim 4, Graesser in view of Bestler further in view of Sasaki teaches the laser tracker of claim 1, however does not teach: the laser tracker includes an automatic target search functionality for automatically finding the first target point and/or the reference object, and in the context of the calibration functionality, by means of assistance by the automatic target search functionality, the target axis reference measurement and the distance measuring beam scan take place automatically. Zhang teaches an automatic target search functionality for automatically finding the first target point (Fig. 1, control and guidance system; § 2.4, pp. 71600R-3 to 71600R-4, the camera searches for marked points and determines the direction of a located point), and the automatic reference measurement where camera feedback directs the instrument until the projected laser spot and marked target coincide, followed by recording horizontal and vertical angles (§ 2.4, p. 71600R-4). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the laser tracker of Graesser in view of Bestler further in view of Sasaki with the teachings of Zhang in order to acquire the targeting beam reference observation at the visually marked reference point and pass the located reference direction to the existing scan controller to select and execute the scan of the reference object automatically, thereby reducing measurement time and errors associated with manual pointing and yielding a system with automatic target acquisition, reference measurement, and scan calibration (Zhang, § 1, pp. 71600R-1 to 71600R-2; § 2.4, pp. 71600R-3 to 71600R-4).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5, 7, 44-47 and 49-53 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) set forth in this Office action and further rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. A statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter are as follows.
Regarding claim 5, Graesser in view of Bestler further in view of Sasaki fails to teach the laser tracker as claimed in claim 1, wherein the laser tracker is configured such that the identification of the second target point takes place based on the assumption that the reference object is formed at least partially spherically and the second target point corresponds to the sphere center point of a sphere defined by the at least partially spherical shape of the reference object. Neither Grässer nor Zhang remedy the deficiencies of Graesser in view of Bestler further in view of Sasaki.
Regarding claim 7, Graesser in view of Grässer fails to teach the laser tracker as claimed in claim 6, wherein the laser tracker is configured such that the identification of the second target point takes place based on the assumption that the reference object is formed at least partially spherically and the second target point is assigned to a point on the sphere surface or the center of a sphere defined by the at least partially spherical shape of the reference object. Neither Bestler, Sasaki, nor Zhang remedy the deficiencies of Graesser in view of Grässer.
Regarding claim 44, Graesser in view of Bestler further in view of Sasaki fails to teach the laser tracker as claimed in claim 1, wherein the laser tracker comprises an optical coupling element configured for generating a common emission path of the targeting beam and the distance measuring beam, a first beam deflection element is arranged in the emission path of the targeting beam upstream of the optical coupling element, configured to set an emission direction of the targeting beam relative to the emitting component, and/or a second beam deflection element is arranged in the emission path of the distance measuring unit upstream of the optical coupling element, configured to set an emission direction of the distance measuring beam relative to the emitting component, and the laser tracker is configured, in the context of the distance measurement, to perform a setting of the first and/or the second beam deflection element depending on a set distance to the target object, wherein: the laser tracker is configured to provide the setting of the first and/or the second beam deflection element based on the referencing data describing a spatial relationship between the distance measuring axis and the target axis. Neither Grässer nor Zhang remedy the deficiencies of Graesser in view of Bestler further in view of Sasaki.
Regarding claim 45, Graesser in view of Bestler further in view of Sasaki fails to teach the laser tracker as claimed in claim 1, wherein the laser tracker is configured to: carry out the distance measuring beam scan of the reference object from a first distance and a further distance measuring beam scan of a further reference object or the same reference object from a second distance different from the first distance, wherein the distance measuring unit includes a settable focus unit for setting a variable focus parameter with respect to the focusing of the distance measuring beam and a first value of the focus parameter is set for the first distance and a second value of the focus parameter, different from the first, is set for the second distance, carry out a derivation of first referencing data for the distance measuring beam scan from the first distance and a derivation of second referencing data for the further distance measuring beam scan from the second distance, and derive a compensation parameter for a referencing of the distance measuring axis and the target axis as a function of the distance, by means of consideration of the first and the second referencing data. Neither Grässer nor Zhang remedy the deficiencies of Graesser in view of Bestler further in view of Sasaki.
Regarding claim 46, Graesser in view of Grässer fails to teach the laser tracker as claimed in claim 6, the laser tracker comprises an optical coupling element configured for generating a common emission path of the targeting beam and the distance measuring beam, a first beam deflection element is arranged in the emission path of the targeting beam upstream of the optical coupling element, configured to set an emission direction of the targeting beam relative to the emitting component, and/or a second beam deflection element is arranged in the emission path of the distance measuring unit upstream of the optical coupling element, configured to set an emission direction of the distance measuring beam relative to the emitting component, and the laser tracker is configured, in the context of the distance measurement, to perform a setting of the first and/or the second beam deflection element depending on a set distance to the target object, wherein the laser tracker is configured to provide the setting of the first and/or the second beam deflection element based on the referencing data describing a spatial relationship between the distance measuring axis and the target axis. Neither Bestler, Sasaki, nor Zhang remedy the deficiencies of Graesser in view of Grässer.
Regarding claim 47, Graesser in view of Grässer fails to teach the laser tracker as claimed in claim 6, wherein the laser tracker is configured to: carry out an intensity scan of the reference object from a first distance and a further intensity scan of a further reference object or the same reference object from a second distance different from the first distance, wherein the distance measuring unit includes a settable focus unit for setting a variable focus parameter with respect to the focusing of the distance measuring beam and a first value of the focus parameter is set for the first distance and a second value of the focus parameter, different from the first, is set for the second distance, carry out a derivation of first referencing data for the intensity scan from the first distance and a derivation of second referencing data for the further intensity scan from the second distance, and derive a compensation parameter for a referencing of the distance measuring axis and the target axis as a function of the distance, by means of consideration of the first and the second referencing data. Neither Bestler, Sasaki, nor Zhang remedy the deficiencies of Graesser in view of Grässer.
The remaining prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure, as noted in the attached PTO 892, include:
Markendorf (US 20160209500 A1) discloses automatic laser tracker calibration using angular measurements and optical detector scans to determine beam position and direction errors. However, Markendorf does not teach the sphere center or surface point identification of claims 5 and 7, distance dependent beam steering using axis referencing data of claims 44 and 46, or axis compensation derived from scans at different distances and focus settings of claims 45 and 47.
Bockem (US 20160170024 A1) discloses a laser tracker combining target tracking, surface scanning using distance and angle data, shared beam paths, and calibration of distance measuring devices. However, Bockem does not teach identifying target points from spherical references of claims 5 and 7, setting beam deflection using distance and axis referencing data of claims 44 and 46, or deriving axis compensation from scans at different distances and focus settings of claims 45 and 47.
Hao (US 20200094677 A1) discloses optical calibration using fixed reflective markers and reflected signal intensity to determine sensor alignment. Hao does not teach identifying a sphere center or surface point as in claims 5 and 7, distance dependent beam adjustment before optical coupling using axis referencing data as in claims 44 and 46, or deriving distance dependent axis compensation from scans at different distances and focus settings as in claims 45 and 47.
In sum, the cited prior art lacks any teaching or motivation that would lead a person of ordinary skill in the art to implement the features of claims 5, 7 and 44-47, thereby failing to render the claimed invention anticipated or obvious. Accordingly, claims 5, 7 and 44-47 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) set forth in this Office action and further rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Claims 49-53 would be allowable for the same reasons by virtue of dependency.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ZHENGQING QI whose telephone number is 571-272-1078. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00 AM - 5:00 PM ET.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, YUQING XIAO can be reached on 571-270-3603. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ZHENGQING QI/Examiner, Art Unit 3645
1 Zhang et al., “The guidance methodology of a new automatic guided laser theodolite system,” Proceedings of SPIE, Vol. 7160, Article 71600R, 2009.
