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 .
Response to Amendment and Status of Application
This notice is in response to the amendments and remarks filed 25 June 2026. Claims 1-11 are pending in the instant application where claims 1 and 6-8 have been amended and claims 9-11 are newly added. Applicant’s amendments to the claims have overcome each and every objection and rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) set forth in the Non-Final Office Action dated 01 April 2026 and are hereby withdrawn. Examiner notes that applicant indicated the title of the invention was amended in accordance with the suggested title, however this change did not go through. Examiner executes an Examiner’s Amendment below to make this change.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 25 June 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding applicant’s argument (remarks page 2 paragraph 6 – page 3 paragraph 3) encompassing the various reasons why primary reference Metzler does not render obvious independent claim 1, examiner finds these arguments unpersuasive.
Applicant argues (remarks page 3 paragraph 1) that Metzler does not disclose that a first tracker or the system sends positional information of the air vehicle to the second tracker while the air vehicle is in a first measuring area so that the second tracker can acquire, aim toward, or begin tracking the air vehicle. Examiner notes that the rejection relies upon Metzler at least [0120] for two laser trackers 30a/30b in communication with an air vehicle 20, where the responsibility for tracking of the air vehicle is transferrable between the two laser trackers in case of sight restriction between either of the laser trackers, and also notes that the claim does not recite “the first tracker sending positional information of the air vehicle to the second tracker”. As will be shown below, under the broadest reasonable interpretation of “position signal” and “positional information”, Metzler does teach these claim limitations.
Applicant argues (remarks page 3 paragraph 2) that Metzler’s cited disclosure does not explain how a second laser tracker that is not already tracking the air vehicle would acquire the air vehicle, examiner notes that this issue may be readably remedied by solutions within the art, especially given both laser trackers’ ability to track the air vehicle 20 via markers 24. As will be shown below, the switch of responsibility between first to second coordinate measuring device is inherently done via a “position signal” of the movable accessory device.
Applicant argues (remarks page 3 paragraph 2) that the rejection’s inference that “because Metzler mentions multiple trackers and a transfer of responsibility, a position-signal-based initiation of tracking must necessarily be present” is unsupported. Examiner notes that there is an inherent communication (or lack of communication, which is included under the BRI of “position signal”) between the laser tracker and the air vehicle which catalyzes the transfer of tracking responsibility. Applicant argues that “a disclosure of multiple trackers or redundant tracking is not a disclosure of a second coordinate measuring device initiating tracking based on a position signal that provides the movable accessory device’s position”, and examiner notes that the claim is ambiguous as to what exactly is communicated within the “position signal” – under the BRI of “the position signal providing positional information regarding a position of the movable accessory device”, the lack of marker 24 detection on the air vehicle 20 by the laser tracker 30a/30b inherently contains information regarding “a position of the movable accessory device”, i.e. the position information being “the air vehicle is no longer is a position where the first laser tracker 30a/30b can detect its markers”.
Regarding applicant’s argument (remarks page 3 paragraph 3) that the position signals 35 of Metzler do not cure this deficiency because Metzler uses the position signals 35 which contain position and orientation of the air vehicle in the context of referencing the scanning apparatus and determining coordinates of the scanned object’s surface, examiner notes that under the BRI of “position signal”, as explored above, Metzler teaches the initiation of tracking between two laser trackers as a function of sight restrictions between the air vehicle and laser trackers.
Regarding applicant’s argument with respect to Bridges (remarks page 3 paragraph 4 – page 4 paragraph 1), examiner does not rely upon Bridges to teach the limitations in question. This argument is therefore moot.
Examiner notes that as a backdrop to the entire discussion above, the claims are drawn to a system and not a method – the cause for initiation of tracking by the second coordinate measuring device is both a functional limitation of the second coordinate measuring device, and a recitation of what the device does rather than what the device is. Under MPEP §2114 I and II, when a functional limitation is an inherent characteristic of the prior art, the prior art structure inherently possesses the functionally defined limitations (In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1432. See also Bettcher Industries, Inc. v. Bunzl USA, Inc., 661 F.3d 629, 639-40, 100 USPQ2d 1433, 1440 (Fed. Cir. 2011)), and a recitation of what the device does not differentiate a claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus if the prior art apparatus teaches all structural limitations of the claim (Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) and Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987)).
For these reasons, examiner finds applicant’s argument unpersuasive and the rejections of at least claim 1 is maintained.
EXAMINER'S AMENDMENT
An examiner’s amendment to the record appears below. Should the changes and/or additions be unacceptable to applicant, an amendment may be filed as provided by 37 CFR 1.312. To ensure consideration of such an amendment, it MUST be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee.
Authorization for this examiner’s amendment was given in the Remarks dated 25 June 2026 by Jonathan M. Benns.
The application has been amended as follows:
IN THE TITLE:
Delete: “METROLOGY SYSTEM” and
replace with: “METROLOGY SYSTEM WITH A PLURALITY OF COORDINATE MEASURING DEVICES FOR POSITION TRACKING OF A SCANNING DEVICE”.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
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.
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.
Regarding claim 1, the claim recites the limitation “coordinate measuring device” and “movable accessory device” which use the generic placeholder “device” that are coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Accordingly, “coordinate measuring device” is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) as corresponding to a laser tracker, a camera system, a tachymeter, a theodolite, a projection scanner, laser scanner, time of flight measuring unit, or laser radar unit (at least applicant’s specification page 12 paragraph 4), and any equivalents thereof.
The “movable accessory device” is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) as corresponding to a tactile, laser, or camera based probing or scanning device, a tool or a laser tracker (applicant’s specification page 3 paragraph 2 and claim 6), and any equivalents thereof.
Regarding claim 8, the claim recites the limitation “recognizer” which is a generic placeholder and 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.
Accordingly, the limitation “recognizer” is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) as corresponding to a computer, and any equivalents thereof, since the recognizer is “based on a computer vision algorithm to detect and track objects in a video stream” (applicant’s specification page 4 paragraph 1 and page 60 paragraph 3), and aspects of the invention relate to computer program products stored on machine-readable media executable by a computing device (applicant’s specification page 15 paragraph 2) - i.e. the recognizer is run on a computer since it is based on the computer vision algorithm to detect and track objects in the video stream.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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 CFR 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 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2014/0046589 A1 by Bernhard Metzler et al. (herein after “Metzler”) in view of US 2003/0227616 A1 by Robert E. Bridges (herein after “Bridges”). Examiner notes the reference Metzler was cited in the IDSs filed 15 July 2024 and 16 January 2025.
Regarding claim 1, Metzler discloses a metrology system (Metzler title; system for determining 3D coordinates of an object surface i.e. metrology), comprising:
at least a first and a second coordinate measuring device in each case configured to automatically track a movable accessory device and to generate coordinate measuring data for determining a position of the movable accessory device (Metzler fig. 3 and [0118] discloses two laser trackers 30a and 30b [first and second coordinate measuring devices]; the laser trackers determine six degrees of freedom for an air vehicle 20 [automatically tracking a movable accessory device]; the trackers 30a,30b send signals to a control unit containing current position and orientation of the air vehicle [determining a position of the movable accessory device]), wherein
the first and second coordinate measuring device are arranged in a fixed positional relationship such that the coordinate measuring data generated by the first and the second coordinate measurement device are referenceable to a common coordinate system (Metzler [0118] discloses the determination of the six degrees of freedom of the air vehicle 20 by each of the laser trackers 30a and 30b; therefore, they are each referenceable to the common coordinate system of the air vehicle)
the movable accessory device, configured for scanning or probing of an object (Metzler fig. 3 and [0118] discloses the scanning of an object 60 via a scanner 21 on the air vehicle 20 [movable accessory device configured for scanning of an object]), and/or for carrying out an intervention on the object (this limitation is not considered due to the “and/or” between the previous limitation), wherein
the first coordinate measuring device is configured to track the movable accessory device and to generate coordinate measuring data when the movable accessory device is located within a first measurement area (Metzler [0118] discloses at least the first laser tracker 30a generates coordinate measuring data of the air vehicle 20; coordinate measuring data is obtained with the air vehicle 20 inherently being in a measurement area [the associated measurement area is a “first” measurement area]),
the second coordinate measuring device is configured to track the movable accessory device and to generate coordinate measuring data when the movable accessory device is located within a second measuring area (Metzler [0118] discloses at least the second laser tracker 30b also generates coordinate measuring data of the air vehicle 20; coordinate measuring data is obtained with the air vehicle 20 inherently being in a measurement area [the associated measurement area is a “second” measurement area]; additionally, [0120] discloses the redundancy of the measuring system, such that depending on the location of the air vehicle 20, one or the other laser tracker 30a or 30b is responsible for tracking and/or measurement [first and second measurement areas exist and are measured respectively by the first and second coordinate measuring devices]),
the system is configured to send out a position signal while the movable accessory device is located within the first measuring area, the position signal providing positional information regarding a position of the movable accessory device (Metzler fig. 3 and [0118] discloses position signals 35 which are sent by both the first and second laser trackers 30a, 30b which contains information regarding the position and orientation of the scanner 21 [position of the movable accessory device]; since the signal is sent by at least the first laser tracker 30a, the movable accessory device is located within the first measurement area]),
the second coordinate measuring device is configured to initiate tracking the movable accessory device based on the position signal (Metzler [0120] discloses the transferal of the tracking and/or measurement of the air vehicle 20 based on the position of the air vehicle 20 [i.e. when the air vehicle 20 is outside of a range of detection of at least the first laser tracker 30a]).
Metzler is silent to wherein the first and second coordinate measuring devices are configured to communicate to each other.
However, Bridges does address this limitation. Metzler and Bridges are considered to be analogous to the present invention because they are systems which utilize laser tracking systems to track the location of a reflecting target.
Bridges discloses “wherein the first and second coordinate measuring devices are configured to communicate to each other” (Bridges [0018] and fig. 1 disclose two trackers 22 and 24 [analogous to the laser trackers 30a and 30b of Metzler and therefore the first and second coordinate measuring devices]; synchronization of the trackers is provided by a signal sent from one tracker to another [trackers are configured to communicate with one another]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Metzler to incorporate wherein the first and second coordinate measuring devices are configured to communicate to each other as suggested by Bridges for the advantage of increasing the ease at which synchronization between the two trackers can be achieved, as it is necessary if the trackers are moved to new positions or otherwise undergo a change in their frame of reference (Metzler [0018]).
Regarding claim 2, Metzler when modified by Bridges discloses the system according to claim 1, and Metzler further teaches the system wherein the first measuring area comprises a transition area interfacing with the second measuring area (Metzler [0120] discloses the transition from one laser tracker to the other laser tracker 30a and 30b based on a sight restriction of the air vehicle 20 being detected – there exists an area that, when the air vehicle enters said area, a line of sight of one tracker to the air vehicle is restricted; the location where that occurs is considered as a transition area, since transferal of the tracking/measurement of the air vehicle 20 is occurs from one laser tracker to the other [i.e. from the first measuring area to the second measuring area]), wherein
the system, particularly the first coordinate measuring device, is configured to send out a trigger signal when the movable accessory device is located within the transition area (Metzler [0120]; at the time of a sight restriction of the air vehicle with at least laser tracker 30a [first coordinate measuring device], transferal of the tracking or measurement of the air vehicle 20 to laser tracker 30b occurs [the trigger signal is considered the signal by which the transferal of the tracking or measurement of the movable accessory device to the second coordinate measuring device occurs; per the previous limitation, this occurs within a transition area [movement from the first measuring area to the second measuring area]), and
the second coordinate measuring device is configured to initiate the tracking based on the trigger signal (Metzler [0120]; as with the preceding limitation, the signal causing the tracking or measurement of the air vehicle 20 to be transferred to the second laser tracker 30b is the trigger signal; this causes the laser tracker 30b to initiate tracking [second coordinate measuring device configured to initiate the tracking based on the trigger signal]).
Regarding claim 3, Metzler when modified by Bridges discloses the system according to claim 3, and Metzler further teaches wherein the system is configured
to derive an estimated motion path of the movable accessory device (Metzler [0028] discloses that a path of travel or flight path for the air vehicle is determined based on position of the air vehicle [i.e. air vehicle 20, movable accessory device] relative to a target surface profile of an object surface [i.e. object 60]; the device 20 is moved along the path [i.e. before the device 20 follows the path, it is considered an “estimated motion path”]), and
to send the trigger signal based on the derived estimated motion path (Metzler [0028] and [0120] have disclosed determining a path of travel or flight path for the air vehicle 20 and the transferal of tracking from one laser tracker to another based on sight restrictions; under MPEP §2114 II, the manner of operating the device does not differentiate apparatus claims from the prior art – in this case, sending a trigger signal based on the derived estimated motion path is a manner of operating the device; since Metzler discloses both deriving an estimated motion path and sending a trigger signal, “sending a trigger signal based on the derived estimated motion path” does not differentiate the limitation from Metzler).
Regarding claim 4, Metzler when modified by Bridges discloses the system according to claim 1, and Metzler further wherein the system is configured
to derive a current velocity and/or acceleration parameter of the movable accessory device (Metzler [0065] discloses that the scanning device as part of the air vehicle 20 comprises an acceleration sensor and/or a speed sensor [able to derive a current velocity and/or acceleration parameter of the movable accessory device]) and/or
to derive a current position parameter providing a current position of the movable accessory device within the transition area indicative of a distance to a boundary of the transition area (Metzler [0032] discloses that the system can determine the current position of the air vehicle [current position of the movable accessory device] and can determine whether the air vehicle is within a target region; under MPEP §2114 II, the manner of operating the device does not differentiate apparatus claims from the prior art – in this case, the current position parameter being indicative of a distance to a boundary of the transition area does not define what the device is, instead defining what the device does and therefore does not differentiate the limitation from Metzler), and
to send the trigger signal based on the derived current velocity and/or acceleration parameter and/or based on the current position parameter (Metzler [0032] discloses that the system makes a determination of whether the air vehicle 20 is within a predefined target region [target region reading on a first measuring area, second measuring area, and a transition area between the two]; Metzler [0120] discloses the transferal of tracking duties from one laser tracker 30a to the second laser tracker 30b based on line of sight interruption of the first laser tracker [the interruption of line of sight results in a trigger signal being sent to transfer the tracking from tracker 30a to 30b, and is therefore based on the current position parameter of the air vehicle 20]).
Regarding claim 5, Metzler when modified by Bridges discloses the system according to claim 1, and Metzler further teaches the system wherein the movable accessory device is at least one of
a probing or scanning device configured to approach the object and to carry out at least one of a tactile, a laser based, and a camera based coordinate measurement (Metzler [0118] and fig. 3 discloses that the air vehicle 20 scans the object 60 via a scanner 21; [0112] and fig. 2 show the air vehicle 20 with scanner 21 that emits radiation 22 towards the object; [0065] discloses that the scanning device [scanner 21] utilizes a camera [camera based coordinate measurement]),
a marking device configured to mark the object,
a tool and/or a manufacturing instrument , and
another coordinate measuring device particularly embodied as a laser tracker (the remaining limitations are not considered here due to the limitation “the movable accessory device is at least one of”).
Regarding claim 6, Metzler when modified by Bridges discloses the system according to claim 1, and Metzler further teaches wherein the system is configured to determine a quality parameter for at least one of a coordinate measuring accuracy and a tracking accuracy provided by the coordinate measuring data of the first coordinate measuring device (Metzler [0084] discloses that the flight path and/or flight speed can be optimized with respect to a scanning accuracy [scanning accuracy here being a quality parameter analogous to coordinate measuring accuracy since coordinates are obtained via scans obtained by scanner 21 on air vehicle 20]; Metzler claim 31 also discloses the effect of the flight path in relation to optimizing the scanning accuracy), and
the system is configured to send the position signal based on the quality parameter, based on a pre-defined nominal coordinate measuring accuracy to be ensured (Metzler has disclosed the determination of a quality parameter for at least coordinate measuring accuracy; under MPEP § 2114 II, the manner of operating the device does not differentiate apparatus claims from the prior art – in this case, the position signal being based on a pre-defined nominal coordinate measuring accuracy to be ensured is a limitation directed to what the device does, and does not differentiate the limitation from Metzler).
Regarding claim 7, Metzler when modified by Bridges discloses the system according to claim 1, and Metzler further teaches the system, wherein
the system is configured to determine a potentially upcoming measurement blind spot of the first coordinate measuring device (Metzler [0120] discloses the determination of a sight restriction [blind spot] between at least one of the laser trackers [i.e. the first laser tracker 30a as the first coordinate measuring device]) being defined by at least one of
a reduced coordinate measuring accuracy by the first coordinate measuring device depending on a relative position of the movable accessory device with respect to the first coordinate measuring device (Metzler [0086] discloses an optimization of the flight path of the movable accessory device [related to the relative position of the movable accessory device]; the optimized flight path is obtained to enable homogenous movement of the vehicle, avoiding sudden deceleration or acceleration movements related to avoiding obstructions in the flight path [obstructions in the flight path serve as a blind spot of the laser tracker 30a] – the prevention of sudden maneuvers increases the achieved measurement accuracy (i.e. maneuvers due to obstructions decrease the achieved measurement accuracy [reduced coordinate measuring accuracy due to the blind spot])), and
a reduced tracking accuracy by the first coordinate measuring device depending on a relative position of the movable accessory device with respect to the first coordinate measuring device (this limitation is not considered due to “defined by at least one of …” statement in the claim),
and
the system is configured to send the position based on the potentially upcoming measurement blind spot (Metzler has disclosed a position signal of the movable accessory device, and has disclosed the determination of a potentially upcoming measurement blind spot; under MPEP §2114 II, the manner of operating the device does not differentiate apparatus claims from the prior art – in this case, the position signal being based on the potentially upcoming measurement blind spot is a limitation directed to what the device does, and does not differentiate the limitation from Metzler).
Regarding claim 8, Metzler when modified by Bridges discloses the system according to claim 7, and Metzler further teaches the system wherein the potentially upcoming measurement blind spot is defined by a disturbance of a generation of coordinate measuring data of the first coordinate measuring device by an interfering object (this limitation is not considered due to the following “and/or” statement) and/or by a disturbance of a tracking signal for tracking the movable accessory device by an interfering object (Metzler [0120] discloses the determination of a sight restriction between at least one of the laser trackers 30a [first coordinate measuring device] and the air vehicle 20 [movable accessory device]; the sight restriction is defined as the tracker 30a being unable to detect aspects of the air vehicle 20 (including markers 24 or reflector 23) [disturbance of the tracking signal for tracking the movable accessory device]; [0086] discloses that obstructions (which would generate a sight restriction between the tracker 30a and the air vehicle 20) may be present [an obstruction as a movable machine part constitutes an interfering object]), wherein the system comprises
a camera arrangement configured to generate image data, which are referenceable to the common coordinate system (Metzler [0112] discloses that laser tracker 30 (and equivalently laser tracker 30a of fig. 3) discloses a recording unit 31 comprising a video camera; the camera is part of the tracker 30 (30a) and would therefore be referenceable to the common coordinate system defined at least in part by the coordinate system referenceable to the laser tracker 30 (30a)), and
a recognizer configured to recognize the interfering object within an image of the image data (Metzler [0084]-[0085] discloses the ability to engage in collision avoidance, where a collision between the air vehicle and an obstruction is avoided; information related to the position and orientation of the air vehicle can be determined via analysis of images of the air vehicle via image processing [the structure which facilitates the image processing is considered as the “recognizer”, consistent with the interpretation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) above, and an interfering object can be recognized through the tracking of the air vehicle’s position seen in the images]).
Regarding claim 9, Metzler when modified by Bridges discloses the system according to claim 2, and Metzler further teaches wherein the system is configured to determine a quality parameter for at least one of a coordinate measuring accuracy and a tracking accuracy provided by the coordinate measuring data of the first coordinate measuring device (Metzler [0084] discloses that the flight path and/or flight speed can be optimized with respect to a scanning accuracy [scanning accuracy here being a quality parameter analogous to coordinate measuring accuracy since coordinates are obtained via scans obtained by scanner 21 on air vehicle 20]; Metzler claim 31 also discloses the effect of the flight path in relation to optimizing the scanning accuracy), and
the system is configured to send the position signal based on the quality parameter, based on a pre-defined nominal coordinate measuring accuracy to be ensured (Metzler has disclosed the determination of a quality parameter for at least coordinate measuring accuracy; under MPEP § 2114 II, the manner of operating the device does not differentiate apparatus claims from the prior art – in this case, the position signal being based on a pre-defined nominal coordinate measuring accuracy to be ensured is a limitation directed to what the device does, and does not differentiate the limitation from Metzler).
Regarding claim 10, Metzler when modified by Bridges discloses the system according to claim 2, and Metzler further teaches the system, wherein
the system is configured to determine a potentially upcoming measurement blind spot of the first coordinate measuring device (Metzler [0120] discloses the determination of a sight restriction [blind spot] between at least one of the laser trackers [i.e. the first laser tracker 30a as the first coordinate measuring device]) being defined by at least one of
a reduced coordinate measuring accuracy by the first coordinate measuring device depending on a relative position of the movable accessory device with respect to the first coordinate measuring device (Metzler [0086] discloses an optimization of the flight path of the movable accessory device [related to the relative position of the movable accessory device]; the optimized flight path is obtained to enable homogenous movement of the vehicle, avoiding sudden deceleration or acceleration movements related to avoiding obstructions in the flight path [obstructions in the flight path serve as a blind spot of the laser tracker 30a] – the prevention of sudden maneuvers increases the achieved measurement accuracy (i.e. maneuvers due to obstructions decrease the achieved measurement accuracy [reduced coordinate measuring accuracy due to the blind spot])), and
a reduced tracking accuracy by the first coordinate measuring device depending on a relative position of the movable accessory device with respect to the first coordinate measuring device (this limitation is not considered due to “defined by at least one of …” statement in the claim),
Regarding claim 11, Metzler when modified by Bridges discloses the system according to claim 10, and Metzler further teaches the system wherein the potentially upcoming measurement blind spot is defined by a disturbance of a generation of coordinate measuring data of the first coordinate measuring device by an interfering object (this limitation is not considered due to the following “and/or” statement) and/or by a disturbance of a tracking signal for tracking the movable accessory device by an interfering object (Metzler [0120] discloses the determination of a sight restriction between at least one of the laser trackers 30a [first coordinate measuring device] and the air vehicle 20 [movable accessory device]; the sight restriction is defined as the tracker 30a being unable to detect aspects of the air vehicle 20 (including markers 24 or reflector 23) [disturbance of the tracking signal for tracking the movable accessory device]; [0086] discloses that obstructions (which would generate a sight restriction between the tracker 30a and the air vehicle 20) may be present [an obstruction as a movable machine part constitutes an interfering object]), wherein the system comprises
a camera arrangement configured to generate image data, which are referenceable to the common coordinate system (Metzler [0112] discloses that laser tracker 30 (and equivalently laser tracker 30a of fig. 3) discloses a recording unit 31 comprising a video camera; the camera is part of the tracker 30 (30a) and would therefore be referenceable to the common coordinate system defined at least in part by the coordinate system referenceable to the laser tracker 30 (30a)), and
a recognizer configured to recognize the interfering object within an image of the image data (Metzler [0084]-[0085] discloses the ability to engage in collision avoidance, where a collision between the air vehicle and an obstruction is avoided; information related to the position and orientation of the air vehicle can be determined via analysis of images of the air vehicle via image processing [the structure which facilitates the image processing is considered as the “recognizer”, consistent with the interpretation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) above, and an interfering object can be recognized through the tracking of the air vehicle’s position seen in the images]).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 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 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 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 JOSHUA M CARLSON whose telephone number is (571)270-0065. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri. 8:00AM - 5:00PM.
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, Tarifur R Chowdhury can be reached at (571) 272-2287. 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.
/JOSHUA M CARLSON/Examiner, Art Unit 2877
/TARIFUR R CHOWDHURY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2877
Prosecution Insights