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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I (claims 1-16) in the reply filed on 03/19/26 is acknowledged.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 03/18/26; 11/13/25, & 08/23/24 has been acknowledged and considered. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-16 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 1 and 10 rejected because it recites an abstract idea as indicated in bold and underlined below:
A laser measurement system and method, comprising:
an alignment artifact attached to a global reference frame, the alignment artifact having a plurality of features, each feature defining a corresponding reference point relative to the global reference frame;
a plurality of laser line scanners; and
a controller configured to, for at least a first laser line scanner of the plurality of laser line scanners,
obtain metadata comprising a set of expected locations of the corresponding reference points for a set of features from the plurality of features, the set of features comprising at least the features of the alignment artifact that are within a target view of the first laser line scanner during a scan,
obtain a raw point cloud of the alignment artifact using the first laser line scanner within a first scanner reference frame,
determine one or more scanned features from the raw point cloud;
determine a location of a corresponding scanned reference point for each scanned feature of the one or more scanned features to form a set of scanned locations of the corresponding scanned reference points,
determine a first transformation matrix to transform coordinates between the first scanner reference frame and the global reference frame based at least upon the set of expected locations, the set of scanned locations, and a common direction vector for the plurality of laser line scanners, and
store the first transformation matrix for measurement of a scanned object.
Step 1: Claims 1 and 10 are directed toward the abstract idea (bold and underlined above) falls in the category of mental processes.
Step 2a: While claim 1 is directed toward a statutory category of invention, the claim appears to be directed toward a judicial exception, namely the abstract idea of: obtain metadata comprising a set of expected locations of the corresponding reference points for a set of features from the plurality of features, obtain a raw point cloud of the alignment artifact , determine one or more scanned features from the raw point cloud, determine a location of a corresponding scanned reference point, determine a first transformation matrix to transform coordinates, and store the first transformation matrix for measurement of a scanned object. For the above stated reasons, the bold and underlined parts of claims 1 and 10 shown above have been considered as mental processes. Such limitations are considered to set forth the abstract idea, because the claims are directed toward an idea in and of itself.
The claims only recite and describe gathering and combining data by reciting steps of organizing information through mathematical relationships and/or algorithms. The gathering and combining steps merely employ mathematical relationships to manipulate existing information to generate additional information in the form of "obtain metadata comprising a set of expected locations of the corresponding reference points for a set of features from the plurality of features, obtain a raw point cloud of the alignment artifact , determine one or more scanned features from the raw point cloud, determine a location of a corresponding scanned reference point, determine a first transformation matrix to transform coordinates, and store the first transformation matrix for measurement of a scanned object".
This idea is similar to the basic concept of manipulating information using mathematical relationships found to be an abstract idea by the courts (e.g. Benson, Flook, Diehr, Grams).
The courts have indicated that comparing new and stored information and using rules to identify options (SmartGene) and ideas in and of themselves (Bilski and Alice) are all examples of judicial exceptions, particularly abstract ideas.
The courts have indicated that, a mathematical procedure for converting one form of numerical representation to another was found to be a judicial exception, particularly abstract ideas (Benson) as were an algorithm for calculating parameters indicating an abnormal condition in Grams.
Thus, the claim is drawn to an abstract idea.
The above judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application for the following reasons:
Step 2b: Claims recites additional elements that includes: "laser measurement system", "laser line scanners", "alignment artifact", "logic subsystem", “storage subsystem”, and "controller", therefore the claims recite the abstract ideas. Viewing these limitations individually, the limitations are recited at a high level of generality and only perform generic functions of receiving, manipulating or calculating and transmitting information. Generic computers performing generic functions or components which are merely used as tools to perform the abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)). Looking at the elements as combination does not add anything more than the elements analyzed individually. Therefore, the claims do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The claims are not patent eligible.
There is no particular machine (discounting the generic computer components) applying the abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(b)), and there is no real-world transformation in the claim (see MPEP § 2106.05(c)).
The remaining consideration is whether the claim constitutes an improvement to a particular technology (see MPEP § 2106.05(a)) or whether it just generally links the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field-of-use (see MPEP $ 2106.05(h)). The claim is generally in the field of aligning a laser measurement system. However, no evidence is provided to show that a particular technological process is being improved.
The claim doesn't recite any details of what calculation or determination results are being considered, how evaluation for comparing results, and how initiating results are obtained or an indication of them, or what is being done with the results at the end.
The underlying process that is supposed to be improved is not stated in this claim. It is not clear what the purpose of the claim is what is expected to be achieved.
For reasons stated above, it has been determined that claims 1 and 10 are directed to an abstract idea/judicial exception with additional generic computer elements, and the genomically recited additional computer elements do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea/judicial exception because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea/judicial exception on a computer.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements when considered separately and in combination, do not add significantly more (also known as an "Inventive concept") to the exception. The rationale detailed in the above paragraphs apply mutatis mutandis, obtain metadata comprising a set of expected locations of the corresponding reference points for a set of features from the plurality of features, obtain a raw point cloud of the alignment artifact , determine one or more scanned features from the raw point cloud, determine a location of a corresponding scanned reference point, determine a first transformation matrix to transform coordinates, and store the first transformation matrix for measurement of a scanned object a result data is all well-understood, routine, conventional computer functions as recognized by the court decisions listed in MPEP § 2106.05(d).
Dependent claims 2-9 are dependent on their respective base claim 1 and the dependent claims 11-16 are dependent on their respective base claim 10, and include all the limitations of their respective base claims. Therefore, claims 2-9 and 11-16 recite the same abstract idea. The additional limitations recited in claims 2-9 and 11-16 are each functional generic/conventional processing steps performed by computer components comprise data gathering and processing steps which correspond to concepts identified as an abstract idea, or ideas, in the form of a mental process or mathematical formula are similar to those found to be non-patent eligible in, e.g., Alice Corp., FairWarning, and Parker V Flook. Claims 2-9 and 11-16 are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the additional recited limitation(s) fail(s) to establish that the claim(s) is/are not directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Therefore, claims 2-9 and 11-16 are rejected under 101 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to nonstatutory subject matter.
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.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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, 4, 10, and 13 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ossig et al (US 2022/0358678 hereinafter “Ossig”) in view of Shi al et (US 2020/0111251 hereinafter “Shi”).
Regarding claims 1 and 10; Ossig discloses a laser measurement system and method (1400 @ figure 8 and paragraph [0059]: e.g., system electronics 1400 that in an embodiment is included in the scanner 10), comprising:
an alignment artifact (1800 @ figure 18) attached to a global reference frame (1700 @ figure 18 and paragraph [0083]: e.g., the scanner 10 having a local frame of reference 1710A given relative to a global frame of reference 1700. In an embodiment, the global frame of reference 1700 is fixed with respect to an object under test, while the scanner 10 is free to move in relation to the object under test), the alignment artifact (1800 @ figure 18) having a plurality of features (1830, 1820A, 1820B @ figure 18), each feature (1830 @ figure 18) defining a corresponding reference point relative to the global reference frame (1700 @ figure 18);
a plurality of laser line scanners (paragraph [0003]-[0004] and [0056]: e.g., there are several scanners in an environment, the target may provide a recognizable code that identifies the scanner 10); and
a controller (1410, 1430 @ figures 8-9) configured to, for at least a first laser line scanner (10 @ figure 17 and paragraph [0059]: e.g., the electronics 1400 includes electronics 1410 within the handheld scanner 10) of the plurality of laser line scanners,
obtain metadata (1432 @ figure 9 and paragraph [0059]: e.g., SoC FPGA 1432 in block diagram form as including FPGA fabric 1434, a Hard Processor System (HPS) 1436, and random-access memory (RAM) 1438 tied together in the SoC 1439. In an embodiment, the HPS 1436 provides peripheral functions such as Gigabit Ethernet and USB) comprising a set of expected locations of the corresponding reference points for a set of features (paragraph [0062]: e.g., in the system is a 3D scanner 1610 and an accessory computer tablet 1630. In an embodiment, the 3D scanner 1610 includes a projector 1612, a first camera 1614, a second camera 1616, and a registration camera 1618. The accessory computer tablet 1630 performs real-time processing of scan data, as well as post-processing of scan data. In an embodiment, the computer 1630 has the capability of performing more complex application functions such as registering of multiple completed scans) from the plurality of features (1830, 1820A, 1820B @ figure 18), the set of features comprising at least the features (1830, 1820A, 1820B @ figure 18) of the alignment artifact (1800 @ figure 18) that are within a target view of the first laser line scanner (10 @ figure 17) during a scan,
determine a location of a corresponding scanned reference point for each scanned feature (1830 @ figure 18) of the one or more scanned features (1830 @ figure 18 and paragraph [0086]: e.g., For the scanner 10 in the local frame of reference 1710A, the registration measuring system U that includes the registration camera 30 is used to determine two-dimensional (2D) coordinates 1814A of feature points 1830 in the camera pixel space) to form a set of scanned locations (1820A, 1820B @ figure 18) of the corresponding scanned reference points,
determine a first transformation matrix (paragraphs [0088]-[0090] and Equation 1 and 2: e.g., a transformation matrix P that transforms the global frame of reference 1700 into a local frame of reference, which is the pose P(T0) for the local frame of reference 1710A and P (T1) for the local frame of reference 1710 ) to transform coordinates between the first scanner reference frame (1710A, 1710B @ figure 18) and the global reference frame (1700 @ figures 17-18) based at least upon the set of expected locations (feature points 1830 @ figure 18 and paragraph [0086]: e.g., For the scanner 10 in the local frame of reference 1710A, the registration measuring system U that includes the registration camera 30 is used to determine two-dimensional (2D) coordinates 1814A of feature points 1830 in the camera pixel space), the set of scanned locations (1820A, 1820B @ figure 18 and paragraph [0084]: e.g., in the local frame of reference 1710A, 3D coordinates 1812A of IR points 1820A projected by the projector 50 onto the object 1800), and a common direction vector (paragraph [0091]: e.g., The three-dimensional vector d is a vector that translates the origin of the global frame of reference to the local frame of reference. As shown in FIG. 18, the vector d(T0) translates the global frame of reference 1700 to the local frame of reference 1710A at the time T0) for the plurality of laser line scanners (10 @ figure 17), and
store the first transformation matrix for measurement of a scanned object (figures 18-19 and paragraphs [0108]-[0109]). See figures 1-20
Ossig discloses all of feature of claimed invention except for obtain a raw point cloud of the alignment artifact using the first laser line scanner within a first scanner reference frame and determine one or more scanned features from the raw point cloud. However, Shi teaches that it is known in the art to provide a raw point cloud of the alignment artifact (paragraph [0104]: e.g., utilize the point cloud data provided by the laser scanner 13 and perform high-precision 3D modeling for complex indoor scenes) using the first laser line scanner (13 @ figure 2) within a first scanner reference frame (paragraphs [0055] and [0069]: e.g., For any two coordinate systems (xyz & XYZ), the rotational matrix can be calculated based on the angle between each two similar directions (ω, φ, κ). By applying re-orientation, the plane parameters can be adjusted, and the point cloud coordinates can be aligned to the real coordinate system, which helps to cluster the data into different room clusters) and determine one or more scanned features from the raw point cloud by processor (12 @ figure 2 and paragraphs 0049] and [0104]-[0106]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of claimed invention to combine laser measuring system and method of Ossig with a raw point cloud of the alignment artifact using the first laser line scanner within a first scanner reference frame and determine one or more scanned features from the raw point cloud as taught by Shi of the purpose of improved convex hull algorithm and line growth algorithm are used to construct the 2D boundaries.
Regarding claims 4 and 13; Ossig discloses the first transformation matrix (paragraphs [0089]-[0091] and equations 1 and 2) comprises a rotation matrix (paragraph [0090]: e.g., The matrix R (T0) is a 3×3 rotation matrix that causes the global frame of reference 1700 to rotate to the match the orientation of the local frame of reference 1710A. There are many ways to obtain a rotation in 3D space) including the common direction vector (paragraph [0091]: e.g., The three-dimensional vector d is a vector that translates the origin of the global frame of reference to the local frame of reference. As shown in FIG. 18, the vector d(T0) translates the global frame of reference 1700 to the local frame of reference 1710A at the time T0).
Claims 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ossig in view of Shi as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Finlayson et al (US 2009/0128557 hereinafter “Finlayson”).
Regarding claim 7; Ossig discloses the plurality of features (1830 @ figure 18) of the alignment artifact (1800 @ figure 18).
Ossig in view of Shi combination discloses all of feature of claimed invention except for the plurality of features comprises a plurality of spheres. However, Finlayson teaches that it is known in the art to provide the plurality of features (532 @ figure 5) comprises a plurality of spheres (figure 5). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of claimed invention to combine laser measuring system and method of Ossig with limitation above as taught by Finlayson of the purpose of improving data processing system for generating data for three-dimensional models.
Regarding claim 8; Ossig in view of Shi combination discloses all of feature of claimed invention except for the plurality of spheres is arranged around a cylinder object. However, Finlayson teaches that it is known in the art to provide the plurality of spheres (523 @ figure 5) is arranged around a cylinder object (526 @ figure 5). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of claimed invention to combine laser measuring system and method of Ossig with limitation above as taught by Finlayson of the purpose of improving data processing system for generating data for three-dimensional models.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-3, 5-6, 9, 11-12, 14-16 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 prior art of record, taken alone or in combination, fails discloses or render obvious a laser measurement system and method comprising all the specific elements with the specific combination including the controller is configured to determine the first transformation matrix by determining a linear regression using the set of expected locations, the set of scanned locations, and the common direction vector in set forth of claims 2 and 11.
The prior art of record, taken alone or in combination, fails discloses or render obvious a laser measurement system and method comprising all the specific elements with the specific combination including the controller is further configured to perform a calibration procedure to determine the common direction vector by averaging a corresponding plurality of individual direction vectors of the plurality of laser line scanners in set forth of claims 5 and 14.
The prior art of record, taken alone or in combination, fails discloses or render obvious a laser measurement system and method comprising all the specific elements with the specific combination including the controller is further configured to determine additional transformation matrices for each laser line scanner of a remainder of the plurality of laser line scanners, and to store the additional transformation matrices for the measurement of the scanned object in set forth of claims 6 and 15.
The prior art of record, taken alone or in combination, fails discloses or render obvious a laser measurement system and method comprising all the specific elements with the specific combination including the controller is configured to determine the location of the corresponding scanned reference point for each scanned feature of the one or more scanned features by determining a corresponding scanned center point for each scanned sphere in a set of scanned spheres in set forth of claims 9 and 16.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
1) Bingham et al (US 2020/0141908) discloses a method for testing a structure using laser ultrasound includes steps of: directing positioning light on a surface of the structure; determining a spatial location and a spatial orientation of the surface from an evaluation of the positioning light reflected back from the surface.
2) Grzesiak et al (US 2020/0132450) discloses a coordinate measuring system includes a scanning module having a laser line scanner and a projection device. The laser line scanner projects a laser line onto a surface of a workpiece and produces scan data from a reflection of the laser line.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SANG H NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-2425. The examiner can normally be reached M-F.
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, Michelle Iacoletti can be reached at 571-270-5789. 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.
/SN/
April 3, 2026
/SANG H NGUYEN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2877
Prosecution Insights