DETAILED ACTION
This Office action for U.S. Patent Application No. 18/470,744 is responsive to communications filed 1 July 2026, in reply to the Non-Final Rejection of 8 April 2026.
Claims 1–14 are pending, of which claims 11–14 are new.
In the previous Office action, the drawings were objected to for lacking a “prior art” caption. Claims 1, 4, 5, and 8 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) as indefinite for improper functional form. Claim 3 was rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(d) as redundant with parent claim 1. Claims 1–5 and 8 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as anticipated by EP 3839426 A1 (“Wenk”). Claims 6, 7, 9, and 10 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over Wenk in view of public use and sale of the Stabila 08560 27” to 66” Elevator Tripod.
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
Applicant is reminded that it is not needed to include copies of U.S. patents and U.S. patent application publications in an Information Disclosure Statement. 37 C.F.R. § 1.98(a)(2)(ii).
Drawings
Applicant’s replacement drawing has been considered and is acceptable. The objection to Figure 2 is withdrawn.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendments to the claims have been considered. The rejection to claim 3 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(d) is withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pp. 7–9, filed 1 July 2026, with respect to claims 1, 4, 5, and 8 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejections of claims 1, 4, 5, and 8 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) been withdrawn. Specifically, Applicant has shown that the functionally-claimed “determination unit” and “tilt set acquisition unit” each has structural support in the specification at paragraph 0034 as limited to a computer or a dedicated electronic circuit.
Applicant's arguments filed with respect to claim 1 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant alleges that Wenk does not teach a determination process to actively omit or skip a calibration process as claimed. However, claim 1 only recites a process of “determining an acquisition of a new tilt offset is not necessary in a case in which the tilt offset is not expected to vary”. The claims do not mandate symmetric equal ultimacy with parallel positive decrees eodem modo, only a mere positive-negative choice. Under the Broadest Reasonable Interpretation standard, such a case in which the tilt offset is not expected to vary is a finding that the Wenk settling time is complete.
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. § 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 2, and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by European Patent Application Publication No. EP 3,839,426 A1 (“Wenk”).
Wenk, directed to a tilt sensor, teaches with respect to claim 1 a surveying apparatus comprising:
a tilt sensor (¶ 0054, bubble type level);
a tilt offset acquisition unit being configured to acquire a tilt offset of the tilt sensor (¶¶ 0055–56, capacitive measurement performed by circuit including electrodes and implicitly a computer (e.g., machine learning));
a measurement unit being configured to measure a variable value of a phenomenon that can cause the tilt offset to vary (¶ 0104, waiting for tilt sensor during settling time); and
a determination unit being configured to determine whether to acquire the tilt offset, based on output from the measurement (id., completion of predefined settling time or observation of drift within time),
wherein the determination unit is further configured to:
determine to acquire a new tilt offset after the variation in a case in which the tilt offset is expected to vary (id., commanding the tilt sensor to calibrate after the settling time, that is, after the expected variance); and
determine that acquisition of a new tilt offset is not necessary in a case in which the tilt offset is not expected to vary (id., settling time wait is optional; no need for a new calibration).
Regarding claim 2, Wenk teaches the surveying apparatus of claim 1, wherein the phenomenon includes at least one of variations in . . . an elapse of time (¶ 0104, predefined settling time).
Regarding claim 4, Wenk teaches a surveying apparatus comprising:
a tilt sensor (¶ 0054, bubble type level);
a tilt offset acquisition unit being configured to acquire a tilt offset of the tilt sensor (¶¶ 0055–56, capacitive measurement); and
a determination unit being configured to determine whether to acquire the tilt offset, based on an elapse of time from acquisition of the tilt offset at a previous time (¶ 0104, waiting for a predetermined settling time),
wherein the determination unit is further configured to:
determine to acquire a new tilt offset in a case in which the elapse of time is a predetermined time or later (id., calibrate after the settling time); and
determine that acquisition of a new tilt offset is not necessary in a case in which the elapse of time is not the predetermined time or later (id., do not calibrate before the settling time).
Regarding claim 8, Wenk teaches a surveying apparatus being configured to perform surveying (¶ 0053, geodetic surveying instrument), the surveying apparatus comprising:
a tilt sensor (¶¶ 0053–54, bubble type level);
a horizontal rotation unit mounted with the tilt sensor (Fig. 1, ¶ 0053; turret 41 mounted on base 40 to be rotatable on horizontal axis 48); and
a tilt offset acquisition unit being configured to acquire a tilt offset of the tilt sensor (¶¶ 0055–56, capacitive measurement),
wherein the tilt offset is acquired while the horizontal rotation unit is rotated horizontally (¶ 0104, calibration is “mov[ing] the tilt sensor slowly about level orientation”) for specific surveying (id. calibration performed after the tilt sensor is set up or stationed), in response to reception of an instruction for executing the specific surveying (id., command to calibrate).
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 C.F.R. § 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 3 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wenk in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0363188 A1 (“Ikebuchi”).
Claims 3 and 5 limit the condition that determines acquiring a new tilt offset to not be elapsed time as in Wenk. Claim 3 is the more restrictive of the two claims, requiring temperature variance. However, in combination with Wenk, Ikebuchi, directed to a three-dimensional measuring device, teaches with respect to claim 3 the surveying apparatus of claim 1, wherein the measurement unit is a temperature sensor, and the determination unit is further configured to:
determine to acquire a new tilt offset again in a case in which a variation range of output from the temperature sensor exceeds a predetermined range (¶¶ 0200, 0208; automatic calibration when temperature falls outside a predetermined temperature range); and
determine that acquisition of a new tilt offset is not necessary in a case in which the variation range does not exceed the predetermined range (id., no need to perform a temperature-based calibration when the temperature does not fall outside the range).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to calibrate the Wenk tilt sensor automatically based on a temperature deviation, as taught by Ikebuchi, in order to reduce drift or inaccuracy from temperature deviation. Ikebuchi ¶ 0142.
Regarding claim 5, Wenk in view of Ikebuchi teaches a surveying apparatus comprising:
a horizontal rotation unit (Wenk ¶ 0053, surveying instrument comprising turret 41 mounted on base 40 to be rotatable on horizontal axis 48) having a measuring device that is at least one of a temperature sensor measuring a temperature (Ikebuchi ¶¶ 0200, 0208; determining if temperature falls outside a predetermined temperature range), . . . ;
a tilt sensor being disposed on the horizontal rotation unit (Wenk ¶¶ 0053–54, bubble type level); and
a tilt offset acquisition unit being configured to acquire a tilt offset of the tilt sensor (¶¶ 0055–56, capacitive measurement performed by circuit including electrodes and implicitly a computer (e.g., machine learning)), the tilt offset varying due to effects of at least one of variations in temperature (Ikebuchi ¶ 0142, correction for drift or inaccuracy from temperature variation), . . .
wherein the tilt offset is acquired when surrounding environment is measured by the measurement device while the horizontal rotation unit is rotated horizontally (Wenk ¶ 0037, rotating the sensor during calibration).
Claims 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Wenk in view of the Stabila 08560 27” to 66” Elevator Tripod. The review page of record from Engineer Warehouse, “Last updated on January 30, 2022” and the 3 April 2018 review of record on the Amazon dot com listing both mention an integrated bubble level, showing this was in public use and on sale before the effective filing date of the present invention, 26 September 2022.
Regarding claim 9, Wenk in view of the Stabila Elevator Tripod teaches the surveying apparatus of claim 8, further comprising:
a non-rotatable unit supporting the horizontal rotation unit (id., base 40 on tripod 43); and
another tilt sensor being disposed on the non-rotatable unit (integrated bubble level in the Stabila Elevator Tripod).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to mount the Wenk instrument 49 on a tripod 43 having an integrated bubble level, such as the Stabila Elevator Tripod, to allow for easy setup, as noted by the Engineer Warehouse review.
Regarding claim 10, Wenk in view of the Stabila Elevator Tripod teaches the surveying apparatus of claim 9, wherein variations in tilt of the surveying apparatus itself are measured by the other tilt sensor while the horizontal rotation unit is rotated horizontally (Wenk ¶ 0037, rotating the instrument 49; integrated bubble level in Stabila Elevator Tripod continues to function; “the surveying apparatus itself” as claimed includes the entire structure of claim 9 including the non-rotatable unit).
Claims 6 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Wenk in view of Ikebuchi and the Stabila Elevator Tripod.
Regarding claim 6, Wenk teaches the surveying apparatus of claim 5, further comprising:
a non-rotatable unit supporting the horizontal rotation unit (Fig. 1, ¶ 0053, base 40 on tripod 43).
Claim 6 further recites “another tilt sensor being disposed on the non-rotatable unit”. Wenk does not disclose this limitation. However, the Stabila 08560 Elevator Tripod, in public use and on sale before the effective filing date of the present application, is a tripod having an integrated bubble level. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to mount the Wenk instrument 49 on a tripod 43 having an integrated bubble level, such as the Stabila Elevator Tripod, to allow for easy setup, as noted by the Engineer Warehouse review.
Regarding claim 7, Wenk in view of Ikebuchi and the Stabila Elevator Tripod teaches the surveying apparatus of claim 6, wherein variations in tilt of the surveying apparatus itself are measured by the other tilt sensor while the horizontal rotation unit is rotated horizontally (Wenk ¶ 0037, rotating the instrument 49; integrated bubble level in Stabila Elevator Tripod continues to function; “the surveying apparatus itself” as claimed includes the entire structure of claim 6 including the non-rotatable unit).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 11–14 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: claims 11 and 12 are directed to further automatic calibrations based on detected environmental changes, including an atmospheric pressure change (claim 11) and a large acceleration (claim 12). As of the time of this writing, the current state of the art appears to be total stations that can record atmospheric pressure, but require manual re-calibration if atmospheric pressure changes. See Reddit, “Are there any total stations that have the ability to read temperature and pressure?” (2024) (at best, a Trimble S series total station applies a pressure reading each time the station is set up), “Surveyors using accurate atmospherics” (July 2026) (commentor claims “modern total stations automatically update the barometric pressure”, but says nothing about automatically correcting tilt therefrom); Skipper Techs. India Pvt. Ltd, “Common Errors in Total Station Surveying and How to Fix Them” (6 August 2026) (changes in barometric pressure are known to cause drift, but suggested solution is to manually enter weather conditions at start of the day). Manuals from Trimble Inc. available at the time of effective filing state that a user should check for axis tilt drift in response to a large change in height above sea level and an accidental knock or drop, but does not perform such a check automatically as claimed. While sometimes automating a prior art manual process can be considered obvious (M.P.E.P. § 2144.04(III)), in this case, since the state of the art four years after effective filing shows that the claimed automatic tilt check in response to a determination that pressure has varied, let alone a sudden acceleration, is not known, this demonstrates such a finding of obviousness at the time of effective filing would require improper hindsight. Also with respect to claims 13 and 14, it appears the state of the art at the time of effective filing calibrates the instrument according to a single reference temperature, not a median within a temperature range as claimed.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US 2019/0113365 A1
US 2020/0072605 A1
US 2016/0025491 A1
WO 2022/197185 A1
CN 115046570 A
CN 111982078 A
CN 111366902 A
The following prior art was found using an Artificial Intelligence assisted search using an internal AI tool that uses the classification of the application under the Cooperative Patent Classification (CPC) system, as well as from the specification, including the claims and abstract, of the application as contextual information. The documents are ranked from most to least relevant. Where possible, English-language equivalents are given, and redundant results within the same patent families are eliminated. See “New Artificial Intelligence Functionality in PE2E Search”, 1504 OG 359 (15 November 2022), “Automated Search Pilot Program”, 90 F.R. 48,161 (8 October 2025).
US 2010/0324862 A1
US 5456020 A
US 2023/0350080 A1
JP 2018031613 A
JP 2019049095 A
CN 109356568 B
US 2007/0123806 A1
CN 111551175 A
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See M.P.E.P. § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 C.F.R. § 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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 C.F.R. § 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to David N Werner whose telephone number is (571)272-9662. The examiner can normally be reached M--F 7:30--4:00 Central.
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, Dave Czekaj can be reached at 571.272.7327. 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.
/David N Werner/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2487
Prosecution Insights