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 of claims 8-12 without traverse in the telephone interview with Mark Brooks on 01/06/26 is acknowledged. Claims 1-7 and 13-16 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected inventions, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
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.
Claim 8, 9, and 12 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 7 and 8 of U.S. Patent No. 11971250 since the claims, if allowed, would improperly extend the “right to exclude” already granted in the patent.
The subject matter claimed in the instant application is nearly fully disclosed in the patent and is covered by the patent since the patent and the application are claiming common subject matter, as follows: A method for operating a vehicle measurement system consisting of a base unit, a support structure affixed to said base unit, and a pair of optical projection systems carried in spaced arrangement in a common frame of reference by said support structure, each optical projection system including an optical projector carried by a multi-axis gimbal mounting structure located at a known location within a common reference frame comprising: selecting an origin point on a vehicle undergoing a service or inspection in operative proximity to said vehicle measurement system, projecting a first illuminating beam of light from a first optical projector in said pair along a first projection axis, orienting said first optical projection system by driving a first associated multi-axis gimbal mounting structure to align said first projection axis with said selected origin point such that said first illuminating beam of light illuminates said selected origin point, projecting a second illuminating beam of light from a second optical projector in said pair along a second projection axis, orienting said second optical projection system by driving a second associated multi-axis gimbal mounting structure to align said second projection axis with said selected origin point, such that said second illuminating beam of light illuminates said selected origin point and calculating a position of said selected origin point within said common frame.
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the difference is that the parent application identifies an orientation of the optical projection systems along with several further limitations whereas the child is broader with fewer limitations and specifically identifying vectors defined by the multi-axis gimbal mounting structures along with orientation of the first and second projection axes.
These differences are not distinct since identifying vectors defined by the gimbal mounting structures would be inherent to determining orientations of the first and second projection axes since the gimbal mounting structures are how they are oriented and “vectors” is just a more mathematical term to describe the direction that the structures are facing.
Furthermore, there is no apparent reason why applicant was prevented from presenting claims corresponding to those of the instant application during prosecution of the application which matured into a patent. See In re Schneller, 397 F.2d 350, 158 USPQ 210 (CCPA 1968). See also MPEP § 804.
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.
Claim(s) 8, 9, 10, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hayes et al. US. Publication 2011/0314684.
With respect to claim 8, Hayes et al. discloses a layout system comprising:
A base unit (Figure 11, base unit = 20 and 30)
A support structure affixed to said base unit (P.0053, aiming platforms A1, P.0051)
A pair of optical projection systems carried in a spaced arrangement in a common frame of reference by said support structure, each optical projection systems including an optical projector carried by a multi-axis gimbal mounting structure located at a known location within a common reference frame (P.0051, projection system = laser transmitter 22 and 32, optical projector = T1 and T2, Figure 11, mutli-axis gimbal mounting structure = azimuth motor drive P.0067, known location within a common reference frame = determined in P.0088)
Selecting an origin point undergoing inspection in a measurement system (P.0089, origin point = benchmark point B1, Figure 7, step 610)
Projecting a first illuminating beam of light from a first optical projector in said pair along a first projection axis (P.0089, P.0172, Figure 10)
Orienting said first optical projection system by driving a first associated multi-axis gimbal mounting structure to align said first projection axis with said selected origin point such that said first illuminating beams of light illuminated said selected origin point (P.0089, Figure 10, aims laser beam for base unit A at point B1, P.0173, Figure 7, step 612)
Projecting a second illuminating beam of light from a second optical projector in said pair along a second projection axis (P.0089, P.0172, Figure 10)
Orienting said second optical projection system by driving a second associated multi-axis gimbal mounting structure to align said second projection (P.0089, Figure 10, aims laser beam for base unit B at point B1, P.0173, Figure 7, step 614)
Identifying vectors defined by each of said multi-axis gimbal mounting structures and orientations of said first and second projection axes within said common frame of reference (Figure 7, step 620, data from angular encoders. P.0145-158)
Calculating a position of said selected origin point within said common frame of reference as an intersection of said identified vectors (Figure 7, step 622, plot coordinates for this point of interest)
However, Hayes fails to disclose selecting the origin point is on a vehicle undergoing a service or inspection.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to apply the measurement method of Hayes on any surface with unknown points, such a vehicle, in order to efficiently and at low cost provide a three-dimensional map of irregular surfaces. This doesn’t appear to affect the method in any manipulative sense a vehicle surface may be selected as appropriate by the user and provides a greater variety of things that can be measured without changing the essence of the method.
With respect to claim 9, Hayes discloses all of the limitations as applied to claim 8 above. In addition, Hayes discloses:
Further including receiving, from an operator input, commands selectively directing orientation of said first and second projection axis of said associated optical projection systems to intersect said first and second illuminating beams of light at selected origin point (Figure 7, P.0089, operator input = user selects, P.0137)
With respect to claim 10, Hayes discloses all of the limitations as applied to claim 8 above. In addition, Hayes discloses:
Identifying, with a human user, said selected origin point (P.0180, “the user will be able to enter coordinates of interest into the remote unit”)
Receiving, from a processing system, commands directing said first and second optical projection systems to orient said first and second associated projection axes to intersect said first and second illuminating beams of light at said selected origin point (P.0180, processing system = remote unit, “cause the laser transmitters to automatically aim at those coordinates”)
However, Hayes fails to disclose identifying with a machine vision optical sensor and processing system the selected origin point.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use machine vision rather than a human since it is well known in the art to substitute automatic operations for human led operations and machine vision optical sensors could work faster and with a higher degree of reproducibility than requiring a human operator.
With respect to claim 11, Hayes discloses all of the limitations as applied to claim 10 above. In addition, Hayes discloses:
Receiving data representative of observed points of illumination projected onto said surface by said illuminating beams of light (P.0179, data representative of observed points of illumination projected = view from user of laser light lines)
Utilizing said representative data to refine said directed orientation of at least one of said first and second associated projection axes to intersect said first and second illuminating beams of light to within a tolerance (P.0178)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to automate the process of a user aligning the laser lines and apply some kind of image processing instead. Since as described with respect to claim 10, automating known processes involves only routine skill in the art. Automating the alignment assessment of the laser projectors in Hayes, would result in a faster and more reproducible step.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to REBECCA CAROLE BRYANT whose telephone number is (571)272-9787. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 12-4 pm.
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, Uzma Alam can be reached on 5712723995. 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.
/REBECCA C BRYANT/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2877