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 .
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract contains less than 50 words.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because “?” (next to “S2”, Fig. 3) should be removed.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “24” has been used to designate two different elements (see Fig. 2a), reference character “24” has been used to designate both “photosensitive component” (page 9, line 26) and “receiving unit” (page 9, line 30), reference character “32” has been used to designate two different elements (see Fig. 2b), reference character “32” has been used to designate both “deflection” (page 10, line 14) and “IMU” (page 10, line 29), reference character “S1” has been used to designate both “standpoints” (page 12, line 1) and “stationings” (page 12, line 9), reference character “S2” has been used to designate both “standpoints” (page 12, line 2) and “stationings” (page 12, line 9).
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 2, 5, 6, 9, and 11 are objected to because of the following informalities:
- claim 1, “tree-dimensional” (line 7) should be – three-dimensional --; “geometric overview of the entire object” (line 7) should be -- geometric overview of the [[entire]] object --.
- claim 2, “TLS” (line 4) should be – terrestrial laser scanner (TLS) --; “MS” (line 4) should be – mobile scanner --.
- claims 5 and 6, “the first and/or second standpoints” (lines 1-2) should be – the first standpoint and/or second standpoint --.
- claims 5 and 6, “MS” (line 3) should be – mobile scanner --.
- claim 9, “TLS” (line 2) should be -- stationary laser scanner (TLS) --; “MS” (line 2) should be – mobile scanner --.
- claim 11, “MS” (line 2) should be – mobile scanner --.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as "configured to" or "so that"; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are an electronic data processing unit (claims 15-17), a control and evaluation unit (claims 15-17).
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
Claim 1-17 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 1, “the calculation as an optimization parameter, and, if necessary, calculating such second standpoints” (lines 15-16) lacks antecedent basis. Examiner interprets the limitation to read – a calculation of the second standpoints --.
Claim 2, “the scanning process” (line 2) lacks antecedent basis. Examiner interprets “the scanning process – to read – the scanning --.
Claim 3, “all” (line 2) is not definite. “All” should be deleted; “the missing object part” (lines 4-5) lacks antecedent basis. Examiner interprets the limitation to read – a missing object part --.
Claim 8, “the standpoints” (line 2) lack antecedent basis. Examiner interprets limitation to read -- the first standpoint and/or the second standpoint --.
Claim 13, “the respective relevancy” (line 3) lacks antecedent basis. Examiner interprets limitation to read -- a respective relevancy --; “the criterion of point density” (line 3) lacks antecedent basis. Examiner interprets limitation to read -- the criterion of point quality --.
The remaining claims are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), for being dependent upon a rejected base claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Pursuant to the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (MPEP 2106), the following analysis is made:
Under step 1 of the Guidance, the claims fall within a statutory category.
Under step 2A, prong 1, claim 1 recites an abstract idea of “calculating optimal first standpoints for first scans … using a model of the object which provides at least a two- dimensional, in particular a tree-dimensional, geometric overview of the entire object and considering defined optimization criteria of:
number of standpoints,
walking distance given by standpoints and/or an overall walking distance,
overlap of neighboring scans,
point quality” (mathematical concept), “possible second scans to be
executed with a second, handheld mobile scanner or stationary laser scanner at second standpoints as possible filling between or augmenting the first scans are taken into account in the calculation as an optimization parameter, and, if necessary, calculating such second standpoints” (mathematical concept),
Under step 2A, prong 2, the claim limitations are not integrated into a practical application (MPEP 2106.04(d)(I)).
Second scans to be executed with a second, handheld mobile scanner or stationary laser scanner at second standpoints as possible filling between or augmenting the first scans are directed to insignificant extra solution activities of data gathering (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). Based on the model of the object, outputting the scanning plan indicating the optimal arrangement of first standpoints and -if applicable- of second standpoints by a graphic user interface (GUI) to a user is directed to an insignificant post solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Under step 2B, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Second scans to be executed with a second, handheld mobile scanner or stationary laser scanner at second standpoints and outputting the scanning plan indicating the optimal arrangement of first standpoints and of second standpoints are directed to well-understood, routine, and conventional activities known in the industry (see MPEP 2106.05(d)). Accordingly, the additional elements do not provide meaningful limitation(s) to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea.
The remaining dependent claims do not provide meaningful limitation(s) to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea.
Claims 2, 3, and 9 are directed to conventional insignificant extra solution activities.
Claims 3-8 and 10-14 are directed to an abstract idea/data.
Claims 15-17, mere nominal recitation of a generic processor.
Accordingly, claim 1 and its dependent claims 2-17 are patent ineligible under 35 USC 101.
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.
Claims 1-6 and 8-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al. (“Rapid data quality oriented laser scan planning for dynamic construction environment”) in view of Ramadneh et al. (US 2020/0379116).
Regarding claim 1, Zhang et al. discloses a method for automatically establishing an optimal laser scanning plan, the scanning plan indicating an optimal arrangement of multiple distributed standpoints, the arrangement enabling a scanning of an extended object by multiple terrestrial scans of different object parts at respective standpoints (scanning positions, page 219, left column, paragraph 2), the method comprising:
calculating optimal first standpoints for first scans to be executed with a first,
stationary laser scanner (laser scanner, Fig. 2) (page 227, left column, paragraph 1, lines 1-11) using a model of the object (models of 3D imageries, page 223, left column, paragraph 3) which provides at least a two- dimensional, in particular a tree-dimensional (3D imageries, page 223, left column, paragraph 3), geometric overview of the entire object (page 223, left column, paragraph 3, lines 4-6) considering defined optimization criteria of:
number of standpoints (all scanning positions, page 224, paragraph 2),
walking distance given by standpoints (distance between scanning positions,
page 228, right column, paragraph 2),
overlap of neighboring scans (overlap of scan 2a and scan 3),
point quality (page 223, right column, paragraph 3),
whereby possible second scans to be executed with a stationary laser scanner (laser scanning using garbage collection algorithm, page 227, left column, paragraph 4) at second standpoints as possible filling between or augmenting the first scans are taken into account in the calculation as an optimization parameter, and, if necessary, calculating such second standpoints (algorithm will cover point goals that remain unscanned, page 227, left column, paragraph 4), based on the model of the object, outputting the scanning plan indicating the optimal arrangement of first standpoints (output scanning positions of conquer algorithm) and -if applicable- of second standpoints (output scanning positions of garbage algorithm).
It is noted that walking an overall walking distance is an alternative limitation because it is recited in the alternative form.
It is further noted that possible second scans to be executed with a second, handheld mobile scanner is an alternative limitation because it is recited in the alternative form.
Zhang et al. does not disclose outputting the scanning plan by a graphic user interface.
Ramadneh et al. discloses a graphic user interface for developing a scanning plan (paragraph 0119, lines 1-7).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide Zhang et al. with a graphic user interface as disclosed by Ramadneh et al. for the purpose of developing a scanning plan.
Regarding claim 2, Zhang et al. discloses updating the scanning plan in the field during the scanning process of the object, in particularly in real-time, based on scan data of the object resulting from executed scans (sensor model of laser scanning is constructed for rapid laser scanning of dynamic environment, Abstract, lines 13-15).
It is noted that updating the scanning plan in the field after the scanning process of the object, in particularly in real-time, based on scan data of the object resulting from measured position data of the TLS and/or MS are alternative limitations because they are recited in the alternative forms.
Regarding claim 3, Zhang et al. discloses:
verifying if all object parts which should have been captured at respective stage of execution of the scanning plan have indeed been captured (conquer algorithm requires scan to cover most of the point goals, page 227, left column, paragraph 4), and
outputting the updated scanning plan with a graphical indication of the missing
object part (outputting point goals unscanned, page 227, left column, paragraph 3).
Regarding claim 4, Zhang et al. discloses calculating an additional standpoint for an additional scan (algorithm collects point goals that remained unscanned for garbage collection algorithm scan, page 227, left column, paragraph 3).
It is noted that calculating an additional standpoint for a relocation of an existing standpoint is an alternative limitation because it is recited in the alternative form.
Regarding claim 5, Zhang et al. discloses the calculation of first and/or second standpoints takes into account an availability of reference points for location determination of the MS (scanning positions are derived from parameters at each position, page 220, left column, paragraph 2, lines 10-12) to be provided by a first scan (the first scan/algorithm will collect point goals that remain un-scanned, page 227, left column, paragraph 4).
Regarding claim 6, Zhang et al. discloses a maximal allowable measuring distance for the MS is taken into account in the calculating of standpoints (maximum range of distance between scanning positions, page 228, right column, paragraph 2).
Regarding claim 8, Zhang et al. discloses a calculated optimal order of the standpoints (determining a laser scan plan by specifying a sequence of scanning positions, page 219, left column, paragraph 2).
Regarding claim 9, Zhang et al. discloses generating the model of the object (page 223, left column, paragraph 3, lines 2-3) by a mobile mapping process with the TLS (page 223, left column, paragraph 2, lines 4-6).
It is noted that generating the model of the object by a mobile mapping process with the MS is an alternative limitation because it is recited in the alternative form.
Regarding claim 10, Zhang et al. discloses the criterion of overlap of neighboring
scans (scan 2a overlaps scan 3) comprises provision of overlap of a geometric object feature (top right portion of building overlaps bottom right of building, Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 11, it is noted that scanning with the MS at a respective second standpoint is an alternative limitation because it is recited in the alternative form (see claim 1).
Regarding claim 12, Zhang et al. discloses calculating optimal scanner parameters, including a scanning resolution, for each standpoint (page 220, left column, paragraph 2, lines 10-12) and outputting the optimal scanning parameter as part of the scanning plan (outputting scanning positions, scanning resolution, page 227, left column, paragraph 3).
Regarding claim 13, Zhang et al. discloses
classification of object parts according to relevancy (a laser plan for each part of the jobsite, page 223, left column paragraph 2; laser plans are based on data quality measurements, Abstract, lines 9-10) and
considering the respective relevancy in context of the criterion of point density (laser plans are based on data quality measurements, Abstract, lines 9-10).
It is noted that in case the model of the object provides a three-dimensional overview, considering object parts of low relevancy as not to be scanned and filling absent scanning data of the omitted object parts using data of the model of the object is an alternative limitation because it is recited in the alternative form.
Regarding claim 14, Zhang et al. discloses calculating a requirement for device
positioning accuracy for a respective standpoint (specify scanning positions and parameters at those positions with sufficient accuracy, page 219, right column, paragraph 4) and outputting the calculated requirement as part of the scanning plan (laser plans should specify scanning positions and parameters at those positions, page 219, right column, paragraph 4).
Regarding claims 15-17, Zhang et al. discloses a computer program product having program code stored on a non-transitory machine-readable medium, on an electronic data processing unit configured as a control and evaluation unit of a stationary laser scanner, for carrying out the method (optimization model of the laser scanning, page 222, left column, paragraph 3).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al. in view of Ramadneh et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Diankov et al. (US 2020/0238519).
Regarding claim 7, Zhang et al. as modified by Ramadneh et al. discloses the claimed limitations as discussed above except considering a parallel execution of
first and second scans and avoiding mutual shadowing of parts of the object by the parallel execution when calculating first and second standpoints.
Diankov et al. discloses considering a parallel execution of first and second scans (simultaneously scan upper surface 322 of object 302 via scanner 416 and scan bottom surface 324 of object 302 via another scanner 416, paragraph 0127, lines 4-10) and avoiding mutual shadowing of parts of the object by the parallel execution (simultaneously scan upper surface 324 and bottom surface 324, paragraph 0127) when calculating first and second standpoints (determining scanning positions of scanners 416 in order to place the upper and bottom surfaces, paragraph 0128) for scanning an object.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide Zhang et al. as modified with a parallel execution of first and second scans as disclosed by Ramadneh et al. for the purpose of scanning an object.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Michael Nghiem whose telephone number is (571) 272-2277. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Andrew Schechter can be reached at (571) 272-2302. 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 http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/MICHAEL P NGHIEM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857 September 27, 2026
