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 .
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims outlined below are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims as outlined below of U.S. Patent No. 11860276 in view of Dimsdale (6420698). The claims both include a selectable first mode for a retroreflective target and a second mode for a diffusely scattered target. However the 11860276 patent fails to claim the use of a first and second light source that changes wavelength as a function of time.
Dimsdale shows a similar device that includes the first and second light source is configured to change the wavelength as a function of time (see column 10 lines 10-15). It would have been obvious to include the adjustable wavelength over time because this allows the use of a chirped range finding capability as taught by Dimsdale, this is well known and allows for detection in a spread spectrum as taught by Dimsdale.
Claims of current application
Claims of 11860276
1
1 in view of Dimsdale
2
1
3
1
4
2
5
3
6
4
7
NA
8
6
9
7
10
8
11
9
12
10
13
11
14
12
15
12 in view of Dimsdale
16
12 in view of Dimsdale
17
15
18
12
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 7 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Bridges (20110007305):
Referring to claim 1, Bridges shows a method of operating a coordinate measurement device, the method comprising:
selecting a mode on the coordinate measurement device (see paragraph 46), the mode including a first mode and a second mode of operation (see paragraph 46), the first mode of operation determining a first distance to a retroreflective target based at least in part on the speed of light (see paragraph 46 note the mode for a retroreflective target), the second mode of operating determining a second distance to a surface that diffusely scatters light emitted from the coordinate measurement device (see paragraph 46 note the mode that measures to a diffuse target (also see paragraph 86);
emitting a first light from the coordinate measurement device (see figure 13 note the ADM Ref 103 that injects laser light into the first end of the fiber 115 also see figure 3), the coordinate measurement device having at least one light source (note the laser as discussed in paragraph 42-43) and at least one optical detector (see paragraph 57);
measuring at least two angles associated with the emitting of the first light (see the encoders as discussed in paragraph 85);
receiving a second light with the optical detector, wherein the second light is a reflection of the first light off of the retroreflector or the surface (note the reflection to the detectors as shown in figures 1 and 13);
However Bridges fails to specifically show determining the first distance or the second distance based at least in part on the selected mode, the emitting of the first light, and the receiving of the second light; and
determining three dimensional coordinates of at least one point in the environment based at least in part on the measuring of the at least two angles and the determination of the first distance or the second distance.
While Bridges does show the capability of changing modes between a diffusely scattered light and a retroreflected light, there is little detail on how these modes operate and what occurs between mode switching.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LUKE D RATCLIFFE whose telephone number is (571)272-3110. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00AM-5:00PM EST.
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, Isam Alsomiri can be reached at 571-272-6970. 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.
/LUKE D RATCLIFFE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3645
Prosecution Insights